Russ,
Two obvious candidates for alternative text are (1) substituting MAY for MUST and (2) substituting SHOULD for MUST in the sentence:
"A dCRL may also be an indirect CRL in that it may contain updated revocation information related to base CRLs issued by one or more than one authorities."
I think that these alternative wordings have been either stated or implied by various persons in the course of this discussion.
Were you asking for some alternative text to go into the security considerations section?
Regards,
Carlin
____________________________
- Carlin Covey Cylink Corporation
-----Original Message----- From: Russ Housley [mailto:rhousley@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] Sent: Monday, April 23, 2001 7:27 AM To: ietf-pkix@xxxxxxx Subject: RE: delta-CRLs (was Re: Last Call:draft-ietf-pkix-new-part1-06.txt comments)
All:
Trevor, Ambarish, Denis, David, and others have proposed the removal of the requirement that CAs post a full CRL whenever a delta-CRL is posted. Trevor's suggestion that the consequences of a CA posting a delta-CRL without posting a full CRL could be discussed in a single paragraph in the Security Considerations section.
Paul and Mike have suggested that the current text is fine.
A few people have contributed to the thread but not made their own position clear. Perhaps they are only academically interested. Or, perhaps the dialogue is helping them reach their own conclusion. I do not know. Regardless, most people have been silent on this issue.
I would like one of the proponents for removing the requirement to suggest alternative text, and I would like to hear from more people about the proposed revision.
We are in Working Group Last Call. I would like to reach consensus on this issue, make the necessary change (if any), and get the document to the IESG. Many other working groups are waiting for our document.
Russ