RE: SUMMARY of nonces in OCSP

["Michael Myers" <mmyers@xxxxxxxxx>]

Oops.  I missed Ambarish and Valicert as NOT BROKEN.  Sorry,
Ambarish.



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Michael Myers [mailto:mmyers@xxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 01, 2003 10:20 AM
> To: ietf-pkix@xxxxxxx
> Subject: SUMMARY of nonces in OCSP
>
>
> All,
>
> Towards consensus on a path forward, here's where we
> are with the poll and recent discussions:
>
> 1.  Nonces break caching.  No news there.
>
> 2.  Of the eleven responding implementors to the poll
> regarding normative language in 2560 on the use of
> nonces, nine are not broken by the proposed language
> while two rely on a caching.
>
> 3.  We need to define an error value specific to a
> responder's inability to accept a nonce.
>
> 4.  Closely related to #3, we need some means of
> signalling between a requestor and a responder in
> order for the requestor to determine if use of a
> nonce would be accepted.
>
> Anyone disagree?
>
> Below is the specific list of respondents to poll.
> Did I miss anybody?
>
>
> NOT BROKEN
> ----------
> Marius Marian, Politenico di Torino
> Ryan Hurst, Microsoft
> Yasir Khan, Ascertia
> Miguel Rodriguez, SeguriDATA
> Peter Gutman, (doing what Peter does)
> Eric Wertz, RSA
> Florian Oelmaier, SyTrust
> Terry Hayes, Netscape
> Stephen Henson, OpenSSL
>
>
> BROKEN DUE TO CACHING
> ---------------------
> Alex Deacon, VeriSign
> David Engberg, CoreStreet
>
>
> Mike