Re: SCVP-01

[Marc Branchaud <marcnarc@xxxxxxxxx>]

When OCSP was winding into WG last call, I asked at the PKIX meeting (in
Orlando?) to make OCSP's signature mechanism syntactically optional, for
exactly this reason.

I think maybe two other people in the room thought this was a good idea
at that time.

		Marc


"David P. Kemp" wrote:
> 
> > From: "Peter Williams" <peterw@valicert.com>
> >
> > Policy WG, and reuse: I would like to see the SCVP
> > specification take component form, enabling its
> > object to be reused in the extension mechanisms of other
> > suitable value-adding services, including CMP and DCS.
> 
> I would like to see that too.  It's in the spirit of the (now-defunct)
> Certificate Management Message Format (CMMF):
> 
>  * define a set of messages, and define the sequence of messages exchanged
>     to perform a particular action.
>  * encapsulate/protect the messages using whatever transport/security
>     mechanism (CMP, CMS, DCS, AH/ESP, ...) fits the bill.
> 
> Defining transport-independent message sets for specific purposes
> reduces the difference between "a lot of single-purpose protocols" and
> "one big do-everything protocol", enables reuse of existing transport
> modules/APIs, and as a design paradigm should be a no-brainer.
> 
> Whatever happened to CMMF anyway?  Is this the time to revive it, before
> CMP and CMC go to Draft?