Re: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-pkix-dpv-dpd-req-01.txt

[Denis Pinkas <Denis.Pinkas@xxxxxxxx>]

Petra,

Please take a look at RFC 3126, where many of the ASN.1 structures were
imported from and are thus defined there. This should answer all your
questions.

Regards,

Denis
 
> Denis,
> 
> may I still ask some questions concerning the document "Delegated
> Path Validation and Delegated Path Discovery Protocols" ?
> 
> > PathValues :: = SEQUENCE {
> >        certificateValues      CertificateValues,
> >        revocationValues       RevocationValues }
> >
> I'm missing some ASN.1 definitions. You refer to "CertificateValues"
> and "RevocationValues" but I couldn't find these definitions.
> 
> By the way, you should move this definition of "PathValues" from
> the chapter "5.2.1. Request" to the chapter "5.2.2.  Response Syntax"
> where it is used.
> 
> Another ASN.1 question:
> 
> > UsefulRevoc ::= CHOICE {
> >        certificateRevocationLists     CertificateRevocationLists,
> >        completeRevocationRefs         CompleteRevocationRefs }
> >
> A DPV request may contain useful revocation information provided
> by the client. Maybe it's because I don't know the element
> "CompleteRevocationRefs" but where do I store OCSP answers?
> 
> Could you please send the definition of "CompleteRevocationRefs"
> and "completeCertificateRefs"? I guess they are imported from [ES-F],
> "Electronic Signature Formats for long term electronic signatures", aren't
> they?
> 
> >    CertOrCertRef ::=  CHOICE {
> >        certificate          [1]  Certificate,
> >        certRef              [2]  OtherCertID }
> >
> I'm also missing the definition of OtherCertID used in a DPV and DPD
> request.
> 
> Thanks, Petra
> 
> Denis Pinkas schrieb:
> 
> > Petra,
> >
> > > Denis,
> >
> > > is there also a new version of the document "Delegated Path
> > > Validation and Delegated Path Discovery Protocols"
> >
> > Not at this time. Currently we need first to agree on the DPV / DPD
> > requirements, then we will discuss the solutions to these requirements.
> >
> > The so-called "Delegated Path Validation and Delegated Path Discovery
> > Protocols" document could be a candidate to fulfill these requirements.
> > It is too early to say and this will only be discussed once the
> > requirements
> > document is adopted.
> >
> > > or just a new requirement document?
> >
> > Correct. It is a new document for both the DPV and DPD requirements.
> >
> > There is also a companion document for the DSV requirements.
> > We will only discuss the DSV requirements document in detail when
> > the DPV / DPD requirements document has completed the WG last call.
> >
> > Denis