Re: Candidate for moving OCSP to a Draft Standard

["David P. Kemp" <dpkemp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Mike and Ambarish,

I agree with the MUST as a code-level requirement, I am concerned
only about deployment.  To avoid potential confusion, how about
using the "capable" text in the standard:

    CAs that support an OCSP service, either hosted locally or
    provided by an Authorized Responder, MUST be capable of
    including a value for a uniformResourceIndicator ...

Thanks for the clarification,
Dave




Michael Myers wrote:
> 
> Dave,
> 
> Is your issue one of deployment or code-level implementation?
> Because my intent was to drive into existence functionality that
> MAY be deployed on an as-needed basis.  Note the text "provide
> for".  That doesn't mean you have to use that functionality.  It
> means that the server you use MUST be capable of such.
> 
> Mike