not required to support IDP?

Hiro <yoshida@secomtrust.net> Wed, 20 February 2002 14:50 UTC

Message-Id: <5.0.2.7.2.20020220223318.02585c48@pop.secomtrust.net>
Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2002 22:57:05 +0900
To: ietf-pkix@imc.org
From: Hiro <yoshida@secomtrust.net>
Subject: not required to support IDP?
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Sender: owner-ietf-pkix@mail.imc.org
Precedence: bulk


Hi,
I have one question about Issuing Distribution Point Extension.
In RFC2459 and draft-ietf-pkix-new-part1-12.txt, about this extension

    "Although the extension is critical, conforming implementations
     are not required to support this extension."

I cannot understand.
I think it is not only conflicting with critical flag concept, but also,
if a CA is issuing CRL/ARL(not complete CRL) and it happen the CRL 
substitution attack
on the directory, EE should be find this attack.
So I think this extension must be supported.

Does anyone answer for this question?

Regard,



--
Hiro
yoshida@secomtrust.net

not required to support IDP? Hiro
RE: not required to support IDP? Simon Tardell
RE: not required to support IDP? David A. Cooper
RE: not required to support IDP? Peter Williams
Re: not required to support IDP? Housley, Russ