in Germany there are implementations of attribute certificates.
But they are not relevant for us now. Nevertheless I would like
to see that the protocol design allows us to use it for attribute
certificates as well when they might become a requirement.
In the requirement document you already talk about "any kind of
certificate". My proposal is: just add the different types in brackets.
3. Rational and benefits for DPV (Delegated Path Validation) DPV allows to perform a real time validation for a time T for any kind of certificate and any kind of security service.
The DPV/DPD draft only allows for X.509 public key certificates.
I guess you will update this when the requirement document is stable,
don't you?
- Petra
Denis Pinkas schrieb:
Russ,> Petra and Denis:
>
> The structure of SCVP makes it very easy to add support of attribute
> certificates (or PGP certificates for that matter) at a later date.We are not talking of solutions at this time, but only of requirements.
So the question is whether we add in the requirements document some text
to cover attribute certificates. If we do, which text ?We have not say, at this time, whether SCVP or some flavor of it, will be
the protocol that answers to these requirements.Denis
> We need to make sure that there is a constituency for the protocols
> we develop for the standards track.
>
> Russ