RE: Cached OCSP responses vs. single entry CRLs

["Deacon, Alex" <alex@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

We looked into this.  The problem is that client support for "crl
partitioning" (in this case a partition by individual serial number) is just
about non-existant. 

Alex

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Carl Wallace [mailto:cwallace@xxxxxxxxxxxx] 
> Sent: Friday, December 05, 2003 1:09 PM
> To: ietf-pkix@xxxxxxx
> Subject: Cached OCSP responses vs. single entry CRLs
> 
> 
> 
> Why use OCSP to convey pre-produced revocation information in 
> the way that's being discussed?  Why not use single entry 
> CRLs?  The functionality is similar and they could be 
> propagated using existing technology (e.g. directories, 3280 
> compliant path processing clients, etc.).
>