RE: question to time stamp draft: case of error

[Peter Sylvester <Peter.Sylvester@xxxxxxxxxx>]

> > bill for hardware failure.
> 
> Denis, will you be adding systemFailure(25) to the PKIFailureInfo in the RFC
> version of the Time Stamping Protocol?

With the new text of rfc2510bis one could also have
systemUnavail(24) as a more general error case then
timeNotavailable(14) which in fact is somewhat detailed,
a user doesn't really care about the difference between them.

What is not said in TSP and also not in rfc 2510bis is
the supposed treatment. can a tsp client just retry, 
or is this out of scope of the document? 

> I agree with Jean-Marc and Ari that it would be very useful to add this
> additional value to the PKIFailureInfo since the latest time stamping draft
> currently indicates that:
> 
> "These are the only values of PKIFailureInfo that are supported. Compliant
> servers MUST NOT produce any other values. Compliant clients MAY ignore any
> other values."
> 
> By not adding systemFailure(25) during the final editing of the RFC version,
> this useful value could not ever be used to indicate this type of error.
> 
Not quite true, because this can be changed in the next round of
the standards process. 

PS