Re: LAAP performance issues

[Sean Turner <turners@xxxxxxxx>]

Stephen,

After seeing your presentation at the WG I can see why you'd not want to
support this in LAAP.  Can you just add the design assumptions you used (no
AC chains, no revocation, etc.) to the introduction?  Once you clear that up
I think you answered my concerns.

spt

Stephen Farrell wrote:

> 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