RE: Discussing RTCS

["Jim Schaad" <jimsch@xxxxxxxxxx>]

I agree with Denis, this is a certificate validation issue and as such
belongs in the PKIX WG if to be standardized by the IETF.  I think that
we can provide a review of the document if requested for it's usage of
CMS, but not it's general suitablity.

jim

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-ietf-smime@xxxxxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:owner-ietf-smime@xxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Denis Pinkas
> Sent: Tuesday, July 15, 2003 10:29 AM
> To: Sean P. Turner
> Cc: ietf-smime@xxxxxxx; pkix
> Subject: Re: Discussing RTCS
> 
> 
> 
> Sean,
> 
> > Does anyone have an opinion on bringing this to the working group?
> 
> This is a topic to be addressed by the PKIX WG, not by the SMIME WG.
> 
> The PKIX WG is attempting (but not always succeeding) to 
> avoid duplication 
> of protocols for the same topic.
> 
> We all know that it would have been better to use CMS for 
> building the OCSP 
>   protocol, but this was not the case.
> 
> The advantages of this new protocol versus 
> draft-ietf-pkix-ocspv2-ext-01.txt 
> (Online Certificate Status Protocol, version 2) and the 
> differences should 
> be first explained.
> 
> Denis
> 
> 
> > spt
> > 
> > Blake Ramsdell wrote:
> > 
> >>Peter Gutmann has made an individual draft submission for his 
> >>CMS-based RTCS protocol.  A URL to this draft is:
> >>
> >>http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-gutmann-cms-rtcs-00.txt
> >>
> >>He would like to get some review of the CMS parts of this, and it 
> >>seems reasonable to discuss it here on the IETF-SMIME list 
> if there is 
> >>interest.
> >>
> >>Since this draft is CMS based and potentially adds value to CMS or 
> >>S/MIME in general, should we consider bringing it into this working 
> >>group?
> >>
> >>Comments?
> >>
> >>Blake
> >>--
> >>Blake Ramsdell | Brute Squad Labs | http://www.brutesquadlabs.com
> >>
> >>  
> >>
> > 
> 
>