RE: DPD & DPV requirements

["Michael Myers" <myers@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I took it as the former.

Mike

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Frank Balluffi [mailto:frankb@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Monday, January 15, 2001 9:55 PM
> To: 'Michael Myers'
> Cc: ietf-pkix@xxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: DPD & DPV requirements
>
>
> Mike Myers said:
>
> > The ReqCert syntax of OCSPv2 imports Certificate syntax from
> > X.509, yielding
> > a single X.509 certificate in a request.  At this stage, I
> > have no objection
> > to amending ReqCert to use CertificateSet syntax defined in
> > RFC 2630 (i.e.
> > CMS) to enable a "certificate lump" since the syntax of CertificateSet
> > enables specification of a single certificate (although
> > prefaced then by a
> > SET OF, but otherwise we're looking at a SEQ OF anyway).
> > OCSPv2 is already
> > requiring linkage to 2630 via import of IssuerAndSerialNumber for
> > certificate identification purposes.
>
> I'm confused. Are people saying that the certificate whose path the client
> would like to discover or validate is in the unordered lump of
> certificates
> or that a separate lump of certificates may be sent to assist the
> server? I
> thought the latter.
>
> Frank
>