DISCUSS: Nonce-specific error code for OCSP

["Michael Myers" <mmyers@xxxxxxxxx>]

Julien,

Perhaps this time the subject line modification will stick.  Two
discussion points embedded below.  Apologies in advance for the
abbreviation of your thoughtful comments.

Mike


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Julien Pierre
>
> . . .
>
> What prompted this discussion is that due to
> performance (and other) concerns, a lot of
> people are running caching responders today,
> and want their responses to be accepted by
> clients of type 2.


[mm] To my count, "a lot" is two among the
     twelve server-side implementors who
     responded to the prior poll.

>
> [well-reasoned v2-relevant discussion . . . ]
>

[mm] I agree there exists many variations
     in a v2 context and I agree that this
     WG should consider all such in the
     timeframe of that potential standard.

[mm] Meanwhile, what should we do for v1?
     The current de-facto default is that
     a nonce may be ignored. Does this WG
     support that premise?

Mike