RE: SCVP-01

[Alan Lloyd <Alan.Lloyd@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

	snip
> Yes, we could put in a bunch of changes in OCSP to make it
> work, but you would end up changing the semantics of a large
> part of OCSP.
> 
	its best to add a few features to a trusted transport that
serves a common operational function (cert status and validation) than
reinvent the whole box and dice again - re key management, protocol hddr
formats, routing references, etc, etc - and also introduce compatibility
and interoperability when both technologies are used in the same
operational system. 

	One only has to think of the customer and what they want...
simpler systems, less code changes, less protocols, less databases and
less configuration and more capability and trust  -  to see what the
logical answer is..

	Why does OCSP and LDAP have extensions... Its not so we can
ignore them and produce another YAP with optional extensions. that wont
be used...

	Just my own views - but I do see a lot of customers and
operational systems :-)

	regards alan