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

Re: Cached OCSP responses vs. single entry CRLs

To: cwallace@xxxxxxxxxxxx, ietf-pkix@xxxxxxx
Subject: Re: Cached OCSP responses vs. single entry CRLs
From: pgut001@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Peter Gutmann)
Date: Sat, 6 Dec 2003 14:11:52 +1300
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>
Sender: owner-ietf-pkix@xxxxxxxxxxxx

"Carl Wallace" <cwallace@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:

>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.).

Shhhh!!!  You're not supposed to ask that question.

Peter.

Prev by Date: RE: Cached OCSP responses vs. single entry CRLs
Next by Date: RE: DISCUSS: MUST reject in OCSPv1
Previous by thread: RE: Cached OCSP responses vs. single entry CRLs
Next by thread: RE: Cached OCSP responses vs. single entry CRLs
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread