IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [pkix] review of draft-ietf-pkix-rfc2560bis-15

Stefan Santesson <stefan@aaa-sec.com> Tue, 02 April 2013 14:54 UTC

Return-Path: <stefan@aaa-sec.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 61DC621F86F7 for <pkix@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 2 Apr 2013 07:54:54 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.249
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.249 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_SE=0.35, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id XV9-t5CSpnZ1 for <pkix@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 2 Apr 2013 07:54:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from s87.loopia.se (s87.loopia.se [194.9.95.113]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B8DE221F853D for <pkix@ietf.org>; Tue, 2 Apr 2013 07:54:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from s87.loopia.se (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by s87.loopia.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id F11E01F74065 for <pkix@ietf.org>; Tue, 2 Apr 2013 16:54:50 +0200 (CEST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at outgoing-smtp.loopia.se
Received: from s87.loopia.se ([127.0.0.1]) by s87.loopia.se (s87.loopia.se [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id jolADTqPARwd for <pkix@ietf.org>; Tue, 2 Apr 2013 16:54:48 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from s327.loopia.se (s34.loopia.se [194.9.94.70]) by s87.loopia.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4952A1F74034 for <pkix@ietf.org>; Tue, 2 Apr 2013 16:54:46 +0200 (CEST)
Received: (qmail 73866 invoked from network); 2 Apr 2013 14:54:46 -0000
Received: from gw.aaa-sec.ideon.se (HELO [192.168.1.215]) (stefan@fiddler.nu@[85.235.7.89]) (envelope-sender <stefan@aaa-sec.com>) by s327.loopia.se (qmail-ldap-1.03) with DES-CBC3-SHA encrypted SMTP for <rybar@nbusr.sk>; 2 Apr 2013 14:54:46 -0000
User-Agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.3.2.130206
Date: Tue, 02 Apr 2013 16:54:41 +0100
From: Stefan Santesson <stefan@aaa-sec.com>
To: Peter Rybar <rybar@nbusr.sk>, sts@aaa-sec.com
Message-ID: <CD80BD95.5F33A%stefan@aaa-sec.com>
Thread-Topic: [pkix] review of draft-ietf-pkix-rfc2560bis-15
In-Reply-To: <201304021436.r32EaC6i004048@mail.nbusr.sk>
Mime-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
Cc: pkix@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [pkix] review of draft-ietf-pkix-rfc2560bis-15
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, 02 Apr 2013 14:54:54 -0000

Peter,

Those fields are not treated in any special way depending on what status
you provide in a response.

/Stefan


On 4/2/13 3:36 PM, "Peter Rybar" <rybar@nbusr.sk> wrote:

>Stefan,
>
>When revoked for "not-issued" is created by OCSP server then according to
>actual rfc2560bis is unclear, what must be included in thisUpdate and
>nextUpdate fields.
>Rfc2560bis must also define rules for value of thisUpdate and nextUpdate
>fields.
>
>
>RFC 2560:
>   - thisUpdate: The time at which the status being indicated is known
>                 to be correct
>   - nextUpdate: The time at or before which newer information will be
>                 available about the status of the certificate
>
>
>Peter
>
>_______________________________________________
>pkix mailing list
>pkix@ietf.org
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pkix

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email