Re: [pkix] I-D Action: draft-ietf-pkix-rfc2560bis-20.txt

[Stefan Santesson <[e-mail]>]

We can't include a reference to a private extension at this stage that has
not been reviewed by the WG.

That does not prevent this extension from being used.
Or the IETF from defining a similar extension, possibly based on the one
you reference.

/Stefan


On 4/16/13 9:04 AM, "Peter Rybar" <[e-mail]> wrote:

>Stefan,
>Is it possible to add in the Clause 7.2. "Informative References"
>"
>[CoPKI]  T7 e.V.:  Common PKI Specifications for Interoperable
>Applications; Version 2.0, 20 January 2009
>"
>
>And in the Clause 2.2 "Response" add before the first sentence in the
>NOTE text:
>"
>NOTE: The "good" status and the "revoked" status may include in the
>SingleResponse singleExtensions CertHash [CoPKI] (Positive Statement) {1
>3 36 8 3 13} the responder may include this extension in a response to
>send the hash of the requested certificate to the requestor. This hash
>serves as evidence that the certificate is known to the responder (i.e.
>it is available in the queried directory) and will be used as means to
>provide a positive statement of availability.
>" The "revoked" status indicates that a certificate with the ...
>
>Such text will be helpful to inform implementers about this extension
>which is important especially for the "good" status and is defined
>outside of this RFC.
>
>Peter Rybar
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of
>[e-mail]
>Sent: Monday, April 15, 2013 6:30 PM
>To: [e-mail]
>Cc: [e-mail]
>Subject: [pkix] I-D Action: draft-ietf-pkix-rfc2560bis-20.txt
>
>
>A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
>directories.
> This draft is a work item of the Public-Key Infrastructure (X.509)
>Working Group of the IETF.
>
>	Title           : X.509 Internet Public Key Infrastructure Online
>Certificate Status Protocol - OCSP
>	Author(s)       : Stefan Santesson
>                          Michael Myers
>                          Rich Ankney
>                          Ambarish Malpani
>                          Slava Galperin
>                          Carlisle Adams
>	Filename        : draft-ietf-pkix-rfc2560bis-20.txt
>	Pages           : 44
>	Date            : 2013-04-15
>
>Abstract:
>   This document specifies a protocol useful in determining the current
>   status of a digital certificate without requiring CRLs. Additional
>   mechanisms addressing PKIX operational requirements are specified in
>   separate documents. This document obsoletes RFC 2560 and RFC 6277,
>   and updates RFC 5912.
>
>
>The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
>https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pkix-rfc2560bis
>
>There's also a htmlized version available at:
>http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-pkix-rfc2560bis-20
>
>A diff from the previous version is available at:
>http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-pkix-rfc2560bis-20
>
>
>Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
>ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/
>
>_______________________________________________
>pkix mailing list
>[e-mail]
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pkix
>
>_______________________________________________
>pkix mailing list
>[e-mail]
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pkix