Re: WG Last Call, PKI Repository Locator

[Oscar Jacobsson <oscar.jacobsson@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Tim Polk wrote:
> As most of you know, there is no requirement for a WG Last Call for
> experimental RFCs.  However, this specification has been through only a
> single draft, and has drawn a very small number of comments.  I am hoping
> that a Last Call will prompt some of you to review the specification.

I'm afraid I seem to have missed the previous batch of comments, and was
wondering if you might help me clear out a minor niggle or two.

The repository locator draft and RFC 2782 seem to refer to different
layers of protocols. Where 2782 refers to protocols in the transport
layer, such as TCP, UDP, etc. the draft apparently uses application
layer protocols like HTTP, LDAP, and OCSP. These application layer
protocols are referred to as services by RFC 2782, where the draft in
stead uses the name "PKIXREP".

I assume the intention is to differentiate between generic directory or
web services and PKI repositories, but would it in such a case not be
more prudent to restrict the usage of PKIX defined names to just
services instead of both to services and protocols. This could be
accomplished, say, by defining the service definitions "PKIXHTTP",
"PKIXLDAP", and "PKIXOCSP", which compliant applications could then
query at their leisure.

Granted, it *is* perfectly possible to employ both RFC 2782 and the
locator draft schemes independently to indicate the same directory or
web server, but I was curios about these apparent discrepancies between
the two documents and was wondering if anybody would care to explain the
reasoning behind it to me.

Thanks in advance,

//oscar