Re: Need to support non-ASN.1 DPV clients?

[Denis Pinkas <Denis.Pinkas@xxxxxxxx>]

Steve (Hanna),

Since no answer would mean "yes", you force me to answer.

> I have seen one response to my question:
> 
> >   Do we need to support non-PKI aware, non-ASN.1-capable DPV clients?
> 
> Of course, the WG chair is responsible for judging consensus. But given
> that the only response was in the negative (indicating that this work
> will be done elsewhere) and that nobody has come forward to say we must
> support non-ASN.1-capable DPV clients,

Since Paul does not insist anymore, I can support this statement.

> I will suggest that the consensus
> answer is "No, we do not need to support non-PKI aware,
> non-ASN.1-capable DPV clients."

Your last sentence is not the same as the sentence above: "non-PKI aware"
and "non ASN.1 capable" are not equivalent.

For the time being I would suggest that the consensus is: "We do not need to
support non-ASN.1-capable DPV clients."

I have advocated the use of "blobs" for both the request parameters and the
optional result for a DPV client. This allows to have non-PKI aware clients.
Maybe there are some variations under that wording, but certainly a DPV
client is not DPD capable. Hence a good reason for the separation of the two
functionality.

Denis
 
> That simplifies things a bit.
> 
> -Steve