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

RE: A proxy certificate validation question.



Title: RE: A proxy certificate validation question.

… and for the status of CA certificates, server certificates, or any other class of subjects for which the revocation rate is very low.  CRLs are an attractive approach when the only information to be transmitted is akin to “yes, the stars are still shining in the heavens” and only the occasional supernova needs to be individually enumerated.

 

 

From: owner-ietf-pkix@xxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-ietf-pkix@xxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Hallam-Baker, Phillip
Sent: Friday, January 16, 2009 3:43 PM
To: Stephen Kent
Cc: Johannes Merkle; Philipp Gühring; ietf-pkix@xxxxxxx
Subject: RE: A proxy certificate validation question.

 

On the CRL thing, yes people will continue to use CRLs. In particular for describing the status of OCSP responder certs. But if folk come along and say reduce two mechanisms to one, OCSP is going to be the one left in virtually all application level applications.