RE: CDP Alternative Proposal

["Flanigan, Bill" <flanigab@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hello Phillip,

	Eminence?  Not an issue, at least not for me.  Prose?  Same.
Acknowledgements?  Don't see these folks mentioned in the draft (but nice to
hear about their contributions).  And, thank you for the background on the
draft.

Bill

> -----Original Message-----
> From:	Phillip M. Hallam-Baker [SMTP:pbaker@verisign.com]
> Sent:	Wednesday, April 22, 1998 3:08 PM
> To:	Flanigan, Bill; ietf-pkix@imc.org
> Subject:	Re: CDP Alternative Proposal
> 
> >Before I spend any time wading through this much less submitting any 
> >suggested improvements or comments, I would like to see additional 
> >co-authors from other organizations be added.  Comments?
> 
> 
> 
> I am sorry that Bill does not find Warwick and myself sufficiently 
> emminent to make his reading list. Perhaps if we had persuaded
> Frederick Forsythe and Gabbriel Garcia Marquez to run over the
> prose rather than Brian LaMacchia, Barbara Fox and Jeff
> Weinstein we would have stood a better chance.
> 
> 
> This is an Internet draft based on original research by Warwick and
> myself.
> 
> As with all Internet drafts it is an individual submission by the authors.
> Authorship does not imply any endorsement by any organisation nor
> does it necessarily mean that other people did not make substantial
> contributions.
> 
> 
> Last week we realised that the problem with CRLs was not
> issuing the revocation info but the implicit assertion each CRL contains
> that all other certificates are valid. This lead to the idea that the only
> problem of partitioning CRLs was that one could only know a
> certificate was implicitly valid if one had the all the CRLs in which it
> might appear.
> 
> A simple solution to CRL partitioning therefore is to embed a
> statement in each CRL specifying the CRL population it relates to.
> The issuer is not bound to chose a particular partitioning scheme
> in advance. Indeed the issuer could decide to issue CRLs of a
> particular length, say 100 certificates and chose the scoping
> constraints accordingly.
> 
> 
> We think this is a better approach than hardwiring distribution points
> into certificates as per the Entrust patent claims.
> 
> Given that the area director has told us to jettison the encumbered 
> technology so that part 1 can go to the IESG I don't think there is any
> dispute about the importance of this issue. 
> 
> 
>         Phill
> 
> 
> 
>