Re: I-D Action:draft-ietf-pkix-ocspagility-02.txt

[Sean Turner <turners@xxxxxxxx>]

Is this ID intended to be an update of RFC 2560?  If so, then it should
indicate as much on the 1st page's header.

Shouldn't this be standards track and not informational track
(http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/73/minutes/pkix.htm)?

Sec 3: In the para after the ASN.1 snippet, I think we should add "The
object identifiers (OIDs) are listed in order of their preference" or
something similar.

Sec 4.1 bullet #5 makes me ask if the required algorithms in this
version of OCSP (RFC 2560) are DSA/RSA (must/should) with SHA-1 (must),
then are responses signed with RSA and SHA-256 considered non-compliant
with RFC 2560?  Also, the requirements in Sec 4.3 of RFC 2560 are for 
the client with the exception of SHA-1 so it seems like there might be a 
disconnect because there is no explicit server musts use X algorithm.

spt