Re: request for WG to adopt draft-chadwick-webdav-00.txt as a work item

Stephen Kent <kent@bbn.com> Thu, 06 September 2007 14:13 UTC

Return-path: <owner-ietf-pkix@mail.imc.org>
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1ITI7C-0000LE-S9 for pkix-archive@lists.ietf.org; Thu, 06 Sep 2007 10:13:50 -0400
Received: from balder-227.proper.com ([192.245.12.227]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1ITI7B-0008K4-GP for pkix-archive@lists.ietf.org; Thu, 06 Sep 2007 10:13:50 -0400
Received: from balder-227.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id l86CaVL2036243 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 6 Sep 2007 05:36:31 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-pkix@mail.imc.org)
Received: (from majordom@localhost) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5/Submit) id l86CaV0Y036242; Thu, 6 Sep 2007 05:36:31 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-pkix@mail.imc.org)
X-Authentication-Warning: balder-227.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-pkix@mail.imc.org using -f
Received: from mx11.bbn.com (mx11.bbn.com [128.33.0.80]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id l86CaUgW036231 for <ietf-pkix@imc.org>; Thu, 6 Sep 2007 05:36:31 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from kent@bbn.com)
Received: from dommiel.bbn.com ([192.1.122.15] helo=[169.223.7.90]) by mx11.bbn.com with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from <kent@bbn.com>) id 1ITGav-0004B7-5J; Thu, 06 Sep 2007 08:36:29 -0400
Mime-Version: 1.0
Message-Id: <p06240502c305a37258e1@[169.223.7.90]>
In-Reply-To: <20070906160757.4ccdf148@garlique.algebras.org>
References: <20070906121635.134112cf@garlique.algebras.org> <A15AC0FBACD3464E95961F7C0BCD1FF006A25BDE5E@EA-EXMSG-C307.europe.corp.micr osoft.com> <20070906160757.4ccdf148@garlique.algebras.org>
Date: Thu, 06 Sep 2007 08:35:24 -0400
To: George Michaelson <ggm@apnic.net>
From: Stephen Kent <kent@bbn.com>
Subject: Re: request for WG to adopt draft-chadwick-webdav-00.txt as a work item
Cc: "ietf-pkix@imc.org" <ietf-pkix@imc.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Sender: owner-ietf-pkix@mail.imc.org
Precedence: bulk
List-Archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-pkix/mail-archive/>
List-ID: <ietf-pkix.imc.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-pkix-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe>
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: d6b246023072368de71562c0ab503126

At 4:07 PM +0530 9/6/07, George Michaelson wrote:
>...
>
>um. I'm not sure I understand the difference. In practice, where does
>an OCSP server get its information about certificate revokation, if not
>from its own trust in a repository infrastructure?

in many (most?) cases, the OCSP server gets a copy of a CRL from the 
CA and uses that as the basis for its responses.  For the lightweight 
OSCP model (recently approved as an RFC) the responses are 
pre-generated, typically based on a CRL or a privately-transmitted 
CRL-equivalent. So, OCSP is not a good example, i.e., it generally 
makes use of CRLs or their moral equivalent (transmitted securely 
from a CA).


Steve