Subject: Re: [pkix] Simple Certificate Enrollment Protocol (SCEP)

From: Peter Gutmann <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2014 08:49:19 +0000

"Max Pritikin (pritikin)" <[email-masked]> writes:

>A question: How is updating "half a billion SCEP devices” to a new version of
>SCEP any different than updating them to EST or similar?

It's not a new version of SCEP (many implementations that I've done interop
with already do AES, for example, even though the spec doesn't mention it),
it's clarifying existing practice, noting possible problem areas (renewal is a
big one, see the discussion on the JSCEP list a while back), etc.  For most
existing implementations it'll mean no change, for future updates it's an
option to choose more-likely-to-work option X instead of Y.

Peter.

---

From: "Max Pritikin (pritikin)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2014 09:07:39 +0000

Peter, as long as the scope is around identifying existing undocumented practices, and not adding new features, I could support getting the existing draft into shape for a Historic status RFC. 

- max

> On Nov 11, 2014, at 10:49 PM, Peter Gutmann <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> _______________________________________________
> pkix mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pkix