Re: [pkix] I-D Action: draft-ietf-pkix-rfc2560bis-18.txt

[[e-mail] (Martin Rex)]

Stefan Santesson wrote:
>
> "Martin Rex" <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>
>>I find the most recent -18 change to section 4.4.8 confusing.
> 
> This is what I'm proposing to put in:
> 
> 
>    This extension indicates that the responder supports the extended
>    definition of the "revoked" status to also include non-issued
>    certificates according to section 2.2.  One of its main purposes is
>    to allow audits to determine the responder's type of operation.
>    Clients do not have to parse this extension in order to determine the
>    status of certificates in responses.
> 
>    This extension MUST be included in the OCSP response when that
>    response contains a "revoked" status for a non-issued certificate.
>    This extension MAY be present in other responses to signal that the
>    responder implements the extended revoked definition.  When included,
>    this extension MUST be placed in responseExtensions, and it MUST NOT
>    appear in singleExtensions.
> 
> /Stefan


Works for me.

-Martin