RE: SUMMARY of nonces in OCSP

["Florian Oelmaier" <oelmaier@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Michael,

can you please explain to me why we need 3 and 4? Both requirements seem
to be fulfilled rather fine in the current state of RfC2560: the
responder simply sends back a response without nonce. What is the
problem with the current solution to this problem?

-- 
Florian Oelmaier
SyTrust

PS: While our software is not broken by the proposed language due to
good configurability, I cannot guarantee for all installations.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-ietf-pkix@xxxxxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:owner-ietf-pkix@xxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Michael Myers
> Sent: Wednesday, October 01, 2003 7:20 PM
> 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
> 
> 
>