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

"Yngve Nysaeter Pettersen" <yngve@opera.com> Tue, 30 October 2012 11:22 UTC

Return-Path: <yngve@opera.com>
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 51B5F21F8545 for <pkix@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 30 Oct 2012 04:22:33 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.185
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.185 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_40=-0.185, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
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 et1SdhDpxtht for <pkix@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 30 Oct 2012 04:22:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp.opera.com (smtp.opera.com [213.236.208.81]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0F74821F8458 for <pkix@ietf.org>; Tue, 30 Oct 2012 04:22:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from damia.oslo.osa (oslo.jvpn.opera.com [213.236.208.46]) (authenticated bits=0) by smtp.opera.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/Debian-5+lenny1) with ESMTP id q9UBMOMc013959 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT) for <pkix@ietf.org>; Tue, 30 Oct 2012 11:22:24 GMT
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-15"; format="flowed"; delsp="yes"
To: pkix@ietf.org
References: <CCB55CA3.52588%stefan@aaa-sec.com>
Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2012 12:22:21 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Yngve Nysaeter Pettersen <yngve@opera.com>
Organization: Opera Software ASA
Message-ID: <op.wmzojjgtvqd7e2@damia.oslo.osa>
In-Reply-To: <CCB55CA3.52588%stefan@aaa-sec.com>
User-Agent: Opera Mail/11.64 (Win32)
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: Tue, 30 Oct 2012 11:22:33 -0000

Hi,

I prefer Option 1: Return revoked when a certificate is not known to have  
been issued.


On Tue, 30 Oct 2012 10:52:47 +0100, Stefan Santesson <stefan@aaa-sec.com>  
wrote:

> Before we loose everyone engaged in this, I would like to make a
> straw-poll:

<snip>


> 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).



-- 
Sincerely,
Yngve N. Pettersen
********************************************************************
Senior Developer		     Email: yngve@opera.com
Opera Software ASA                   http://www.opera.com/
Phone:  +47 96 90 41 51              Fax:    +47 23 69 24 01
********************************************************************