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

RE: POLL: MUST reject in OCSPv1

To: <ietf-pkix@xxxxxxx>
Subject: RE: POLL: MUST reject in OCSPv1
From: "Manger, James H" <James.H.Manger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 9 Dec 2003 08:56:11 +1000
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
Thread-index: AcO92FaEZYKQNVnDTXGqUveRl6QNdgABR/YA
Thread-topic: POLL: MUST reject in OCSPv1

AGREE


P.S. Terry,  #4 does not really require a server to recognize a particular extension.  Regardless of any extensions in a request, a caching server can simply always include the nonceUnsupported extension.
I would support SHOULD (or MUST) in #4.  Using SHOULD means existing caching servers are not made non-compliant, which (I think) was Ryan's main concern.



> 4. Conversely, if a server receives a nonced 
>    request but is unable to incorporate the 
>    nonce in its response, the server MUST 
>    include the nonceUnsupported extension.

Prev by Date: RE: POLL: MUST reject in OCSPv1
Next by Date: RE: Cached OCSP responses vs. single entry CRLs
Previous by thread: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-pkix-sha244-01.txt
Next by thread: Re: POLL: MUST reject in OCSPv1
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread