[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: draft-ietf-pkix-scvp-32.txt



David A. Cooper wrote:
Peter Sylvester wrote:
If something hasn't changed since years, this doesn't mean that is correct.
Peter,

You said "Section 3.2.3 now has *reintroduced* the 'prospective' certification path." I was simply pointing out that this was not a change. Nothing was "reintroduced".
indeed, I was incorrect:

The text introduces the word 'prospective' in 3.2.3
in order to make it formally compatible withe 3.2.2.
As a resolution of what we discussed a year ago,
I would have expected something different, i.e. clarifying that

   id-stc-build-aa-path: Build a prospective certification path to a
     trust anchor for the AC issuer

is problematic if one takes the definition of 3280.  3.2.3
said before that the server returns a certificate path (and not just
a set of certs).


Dave
David A. Cooper wrote:
Peter Sylvester wrote:
Section 3.2.3 now has reintroduced the 'prospective' certification path.

I think that we had understood that either this term borrowed from
3280 only means an arbitrary sequence of n certificates and that is
not exactly what is desired here.
Peter,

The paragraph that you are referring to in section 3.2.3 is discussing the use of the path building wantBacks (id-stc-build-pkc-path and id-stc-build-aa-path), which are described in section 3.2.2 as follows:

   - id-stc-build-pkc-path: Build a prospective certification path to a
      trust anchor (as defined in section 6.1 of [PKIX-1]);
- id-stc-build-aa-path: Build a prospective certification path to a
      trust anchor for the AC issuer;

The description of id-stc-build-pkc-path has been unchanged since draft 18 and the description of id-stc-build-aa-path has been unchanged since draft 24.

Dave

Attachment: smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature