IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [pkix] Straw-poll on OCSP responses for non-revoked certificates.

Tom Ritter <tom@ritter.vg> Wed, 31 October 2012 19:17 UTC

Return-Path: <tom@ritter.vg>
X-Original-To: pkix@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: pkix@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E4ADD21F866D for <pkix@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 31 Oct 2012 12:17:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.976
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.976 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id M8Ev1roHddvI for <pkix@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 31 Oct 2012 12:17:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-vb0-f44.google.com (mail-vb0-f44.google.com [209.85.212.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1415F21F85E1 for <pkix@ietf.org>; Wed, 31 Oct 2012 12:17:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-vb0-f44.google.com with SMTP id fc26so2129853vbb.31 for <pkix@ietf.org>; Wed, 31 Oct 2012 12:17:27 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ritter.vg; s=vg; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; bh=OZ4NdXTkM4V8qIxrlsYJt6rH7Tnqa2+wPrra2mXR93Y=; b=fnPhtIabgS2APcMlqSszcBGuP209BJXXqvurDSBE8pfdHmPmdCmdLeP0YCbLLMea6R wwcHHRDoZay6M72xiusA+u/d8LJcs4Fx56dePciy2DBQGMfz1xtNIFiSC+/GBD0AEEmT FZF3SwsKuVaYscy17oLjzx3AQ21UI8quqPwAc=
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type:x-gm-message-state; bh=OZ4NdXTkM4V8qIxrlsYJt6rH7Tnqa2+wPrra2mXR93Y=; b=nCubkEm6c7KZpfjKp0F8l7/8PwV7n0RpDSut/pkPVnI8uUua5eTQBlO/5Lv67/yAGM iRQICqpXlKPvgQhfaqyITi9yfMJaLkZ9MXLryUiOib5gp+8g/pguGDsxmg5Tn09rimZa VCx15SuEvXW4QauauxL2UUtsL5cvCCNzNdiGL2d6pjJ86WVV23nQNlBaimo+COf39DoG UGmFN/mPbxY4yKjKm9S4KDlfOCCWMdYcDMqjiU8XHHPBY6Gs1Lfe9sDsqsqzWpQ3XFoh zR1SXz2xQSr1OMUCQkqDJzXDJ5YO+RP5arAXHJ0b8A+P77iLU7JNXVq3GdHwz0o9EfJE LUQg==
Received: by 10.52.70.48 with SMTP id j16mr48515551vdu.1.1351711047213; Wed, 31 Oct 2012 12:17:27 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.58.151.178 with HTTP; Wed, 31 Oct 2012 12:17:07 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CCB55CA3.52588%stefan@aaa-sec.com>
References: <20121029232328.BF5D91A309@ld9781.wdf.sap.corp> <CCB55CA3.52588%stefan@aaa-sec.com>
From: Tom Ritter <tom@ritter.vg>
Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2012 15:17:07 -0400
Message-ID: <CA+cU71=o=Bw-9mCjFSZbyoXDhbgc8U6A2VhMt6REEe7ZgRM7ZA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Stefan Santesson <stefan@aaa-sec.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="20cf307f3996cee24a04cd5fc002"
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQl9VuiW0GWzudU+ZbV+s190gkJmSt1g7izUYd3+pvPEyqhCs045Fd/p+Lsryd9UCeznl2OA
Cc: IETF PKIX <pkix@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [pkix] Straw-poll on OCSP responses for non-revoked certificates.
X-BeenThere: pkix@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: PKIX Working Group <pkix.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/pkix>, <mailto:pkix-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/pkix>
List-Post: <mailto:pkix@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:pkix-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pkix>, <mailto:pkix-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2012 19:17:31 -0000

On Oct 30, 2012 7:05 AM, "Stefan Santesson" <stefan@aaa-sec.com> wrote:

> Before we loose everyone engaged in this, I would like to make a
> straw-poll:
>
> Please reply with either:
>
> 1. Allow "revoked" response for a certificate that has not been "revoked"
> but where that OCSP responder for any other reason knows the certificate
> to be "bad".
>
> 2. Require that the OCSP responder MUST respond "good" in this situation.
>
> 3. Neither 1 or 2 (motivate).
>


#1.

-tom

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email