[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

DISCUSSION: Nonce-specific error code for OCSP

To: Michael Myers <mmyers@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: DISCUSSION: Nonce-specific error code for OCSP
From: David Engberg <dave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2003 17:26:28 -0400
Cc: ietf-pkix@xxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <>
List-archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-pkix/mail-archive/>
List-id: <ietf-pkix.imc.org>
List-unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-pkix-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe>
References: <>
Sender: owner-ietf-pkix@xxxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.5) Gecko/20031007

Dumb question: why is it possible to add a new OCSPResponseStatus code value (a non-backward-compatible addition) for v1, but not to convey this information through a new responseExtension in the signed body (a backward compatible change with better security semantics)?

Follow-Ups:
- RE: DISCUSSION: Nonce-specific error code for OCSP
  - From: Florian Oelmaier
- RE: DISCUSSION: Nonce-specific error code for OCSP
  - From: Michael Myers

References:
- RE: POLL: Nonce-specific error code for OCSP
  - From: Michael Myers

Prev by Date: RE: POLL: Nonce-specific error code for OCSP
Next by Date: RE: DISCUSSION: Nonce-specific error code for OCSP
Previous by thread: Re: POLL: Nonce-specific error code for OCSP
Next by thread: RE: DISCUSSION: Nonce-specific error code for OCSP
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread