Re: OCSP response pre-production

[Jean-Marc Desperrier <jmdesp@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Florian Oelmaier wrote:
> > - re-assert that it is not conformant to RFC2560 to send back 
> > a response 
> > without to nonce to a request requiring a nonce (it might 
> > change in OCSPv2)
>
> The RfC states: "[A request includes] [...] optional extensions which
> MAY be processed by the OCSP Responder". 

I don't know.
This is not in line with RFC3280 definition of extensions, in which if 
you *do* recognize an extension, you have to treat it correctly and not 
simply ignore it.
With that definition if you implement RFC2560, you can say I don't know 
what id-pkix-ocsp-nonce means so I don't care about it, because it's 
defined in the standard.