Re: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-pkix-ocspv2-ext-00.txt

[pgut001@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Peter Gutmann)]

Uhh, where on earth did this one come from?  The previous consensus on the
list seemed to be do produce a minimal update with some more workable IDs and
CRLDP info as suggested by Denis:

>To be more precise, I do not care about the expired OCSP v2 draft, but I
>care about fixing RFC 2560, while sticking to its original functionality:
>individual certificate revocation information status check.
>
>Having said that, we should correct the major problem that exists in
>RFC 2560, which is how the certificate can be defined.
>
>[...]
>
>I agree that, for defining an extension for handling a CRLDP extension

This thing is neither compatible with the previous OCSPv2, nor with what was
discussed on the list... this is more like 2560bis-bis.  It seems to be
contrary to everything that was discussed on the list.  I already have an
OCSPv2 draft done based on the previous discussion on the list, I was just
waiting a bit longer to make sure none of the original v2 authors would feel
slighted when I posted the new, minimal update to v1.

Peter.