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

RE: OCSP I-Ds going forward

To: <ietf-pkix@xxxxxxx>
Subject: RE: OCSP I-Ds going forward
From: "Michael Myers" <myers@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2002 15:31:14 -0800
Cc: "Tom Gindin" <tgindin@xxxxxxxxxx>
Importance: Normal
In-reply-to: <EOEGJNFMMIBDKGFONJJDIEIMDBAA.myers@coastside.net>
List-archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-pkix/mail-archive/>
List-id: <ietf-pkix.imc.org>
List-unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-pkix-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe>
Sender: owner-ietf-pkix@xxxxxxxxxxxx

> From: Tom Gindin [mailto:tgindin@xxxxxxxxxx]
> 
> If the purpose of CertIdWithSignature is to 
> extend IssuerSerial in a way which is both
> unambiguous and compact, why are both the
> signatureValue field and tbsCertificateHash
> present?
> 


Tom,

What would you prefer?

Mike

Prev by Date: RE: ;binary migration solution
Next by Date: RE: LDAP PKI Schema (was Re: No-op LDAP ;binary option)
Previous by thread: Re: OCSP I-Ds going forward
Next by thread: Re: OCSP I-Ds going forward
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread