[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [TSP/RFC3161] PKIFailureInfo values




Ricardo,


Thank you for the proposal.

Is it fine with Peter (S), Andrew, Peter (G) and Phil  ?
Any proposal from any one else ?

Denis

In my opion in RFC 3161/draft-ietf-pkix-rfc3161bis-00, section 2.4.2.:

   «When the TimeStampToken is not present, the failInfo indicates the
   reason why the time-stamp request was rejected and may be one of the
   following values.»

should be replace by something like this:

   «When the TimeStampToken is not present, the failInfo indicates one
   or more reasons why the time-stamp request was rejected and may be
   one or more of the following values.»

and:

   «The statusString field of PKIStatusInfo MAY be used to include reason
   text such as "messageImprint field is not correctly formatted".»

should also be replaced by something like this:

   «The statusString field of PKIStatusInfo MAY be used to include reason(s)
   text such as "messageImprint field is not correctly formatted".»

I have no experience in writing RFCs and I don't know if my English is the best suited for this
cases but it's my proposal.


Denis, I don't know if I got it right, when you say "is not crystal clear when bits are described"
do you mean that should be written something more about the bits inside the PKIFailureInfo
BIT STRING?


Best regards,
Ricardo Barroso

MULTICERT S.A.
www.multicert.com <http://www.multicert.com>


Denis Pinkas wrote:



Since, you seem to all agree in principle, can some of you propose a full text remplacement, providing the old and new sentence ?


"Only the following values MAY occur" is not crystal clear when bits are described.

Denis

PS. Remember that I am still awaiting an interoperability test so that we can progress the document on the Standards Track.


Peter Sylvester wrote:

Because with RFC 3161 it's possible that exist two compliant systems
which can't interoperate properly in some situations because one accepts that
PKIFailueInfo contains more than one bit with value one (1) and the other not!



It seems that the text could say 'MAY only be any of the following values'.
as the list is a restriction (and extension) of the values define in CMP.


Or: 'Only the following values MAY occur'.

I could detect an invalid hash algorithm and an unsupported extension,
an unacceptable policy, and even time source not available all together.


Peter, I agree with you.

Ricardo Barroso