RE: delta-CRLs (was Re: Last Call:draft-ietf-pkix-new-part1-06.txt comments)

["David Cross" <dcross@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Understood - however, you may be penalizing the CA and the supporting
infrastructure to replicate a full base CRL versus a smaller delta-CRL
only.  That is why so many people would like it to be a MAY.

 
David B. Cross
 

> >In the third paragraph the first sentence (still) says:
> >
> > >    When a conforming CA issues a delta CRL, the CA MUST also issue

> > > a CRL


Originally, this sentence was placed in RFC 2459 to ensure that simple 
clients are able to get the best possible revocation information.  We
did 
not want to require CAs or clients to support delta-CRLs, but if a CA
chose 
to support delta-CRLs, we did not want to penalize clients.

I do not see that either of these desires has changed.

Russ