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

Re: LAAP performance issues

To: Sean Turner <turners@xxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: LAAP performance issues
From: Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 07 Nov 1999 16:57:59 +0000
Cc: d.w.chadwick@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, ietf-pkix@xxxxxxx, xme <stephen.farrell@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Organization: Baltimore Technologies Ltd.
References: <> <>
Reply-to: stephen.farrell@xxxxxxxxxxxx

Hi Sean,

> The model in the draft doesn't explicitly restrict the model to be for
> the
> "never revoke" method in draft-ietf-pkix-ac509prof-01.txt.  Should we
> add a new
> request and response to support revocation or was it intended to use
> OCSP to get
> revocation information?

No to adding one and yes to using OCSP, which works just fine for
ACs (so long as issuer names/keys don't get confused).

Regards,
Stephen.

-- 
____________________________________________________________
Stephen Farrell         				   
Baltimore Technologies,   tel: (direct line) +353 1 647 7406
61 Fitzwilliam Lane,                    fax: +353 1 647 7499
Dublin 2.                mailto:stephen.farrell@baltimore.ie
Ireland                             http://www.baltimore.com

Follow-Ups:
- Re: LAAP performance issues
  - From: Sean Turner

References:
- LAAP performance issues
  - From: Andy Dowling
- Re: LAAP performance issues
  - From: Sean Turner

Prev by Date: Re: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-pkix-laap-00.txt
Next by Date: time-stamp ASN.1 module
Previous by thread: Re: LAAP performance issues
Next by thread: Re: LAAP performance issues
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread