[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
FW: Clarification request on RFC 2560
Sorry, Denis/Ryan. My mistake. Have clarified the use of that
field in responses in the candidate for a Draft Standard.
Regards,
Ambarish
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Ambarish Malpani
Architect 650.567.5457
ValiCert, Inc. ambarish@xxxxxxxxxxxx
339 N. Bernardo Ave. http://www.valicert.com
Mountain View, CA 94043
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ryan Hurst
> Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2001 5:15 PM
> To: Ambarish Malpani
> Subject: RE: Clarification request on RFC 2560
>
>
> Ambarish that text is specific to the request...
>
> Ryan
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ambarish Malpani [mailto:ambarish@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2001 10:57 AM
> To: 'Denis Pinkas'; pkix
> Cc: Mike Myers
> Subject: RE: Clarification request on RFC 2560
>
>
>
> See section 4.1.2. It is explained over there.
>
> Regards,
> Ambarish
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> Ambarish Malpani
> Architect 650.567.5457
> ValiCert, Inc. ambarish@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> 339 N. Bernardo Ave. http://www.valicert.com
> Mountain View, CA 94043
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Denis Pinkas [mailto:Denis.Pinkas@xxxxxxxx]
> > Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2001 3:20 AM
> > To: pkix
> > Cc: Mike Myers
> > Subject: Clarification request on RFC 2560
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > In RFC 2560 section 4.2.1 (OCSP Response), we have
> >
> > BasicOCSPResponse ::= SEQUENCE {
> > tbsResponseData ResponseData,
> > signatureAlgorithm AlgorithmIdentifier,
> > signature BIT STRING,
> > certs [0] EXPLICIT SEQUENCE OF
> > Certificate OPTIONAL }
> >
> > Usually every ASN1 field is explained, but in that document
> > the certs field
> > is not explained.
> >
> > Should that optional field be interpreted to carry a sequence
> > of possibly
> > useful certificates ?
> >
> > Denis
> >
>