Mike,
My preference would be to define an extension (e.g., via an informational RFC) that can be used with v1 bits on the wire, and then to formally incorporate the extension into v2. Again, if a strong case can be made for v2 to use a different mechanism (than the extension defined above), I am OK with that.
I hope this answers your question.
Frank
"Michael Myers"
<mmyers@xxxxxxxxx To: Frank Balluffi/NewYork/DBNA/DeuBa@DBNA, <thayes0993@xxxxxxx>
> cc: "David Engberg" <dave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, <ietf-pkix@xxxxxxx>
Sent by: Subject: RE: OCSP response pre-production
owner-ietf-pkix@m
ail.imc.org
10/02/2003 06:08
PM
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Frank Balluffi
>
> . . .
>
> I too like the proposal to use a flag or an
> extension. Perhaps an extension could say the
> equivalent of, "This is a cached response."
Frank,
Would you object the v1/v2 dual paths as means of getting this
into place?
Mike
--
This e-mail may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient (or have received this e-mail in error) please notify the sender immediately and destroy this e-mail. Any unauthorized copying, disclosure or distribution of the material in this e-mail is strictly forbidden.