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

["Michael Myers" <myers@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

> From: owner-ietf-pkix@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:owner-ietf-pkix@xxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of
> Peter Gutmann
>
> What's wrong with using what was in the
> original OCSPv2 draft, a simple cut-and-paste of
> obvious, sensible cert identifiers?


I think this makes sense.  It is a point on which this I-D's
coauthors couldn't entirely agree so I left it as expressed in
the -00 iteration anticipating this reaction.  My reasoning for
getting this I-D out was to separate v2-ness issues away from
the DPV/DPD issues.

What makes the most sense going forward is to have two separate
working documents: 1) a "core framework" syntax; and 2) a
"services and extensions" document; especially since this most
recent I-D also proposes a new CRL Locator extension.

This approach has the benefit of fitting well against the
upcoming DPV/DPD decision-making process while accommodating
parallel list dialog on cert id mechanisms.  All previous and
proposed services/extensions will be lumped together, including
the originally proposed DPV and DPD extensions.  The DPV/DPD
poll then determines whether or not to retain that portion of
text in the services and extensions I-D.

Mike