Re: [pkix] I-D Action: draft-ietf-pkix-rfc2560bis-20.txt
"Peter Rybar" <rybar@nbusr.sk> Tue, 16 April 2013 07:04 UTC
Return-Path: <prvs=0818d94bcd=rybar@nbusr.sk>
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 4C3BB21F965C for <pkix@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 16 Apr 2013 00:04:56 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.694
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.694 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_SK=1.35, HOST_EQ_SK=0.555]
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 ZbOWg97arfXA for <pkix@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 16 Apr 2013 00:04:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.nbusr.sk (mail.nbusr.sk [84.245.65.227]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5458B21F965E for <pkix@ietf.org>; Tue, 16 Apr 2013 00:04:55 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <201304160704.r3G74m3b044572@mail.nbusr.sk>
From: Peter Rybar <rybar@nbusr.sk>
To: 'Stefan Santesson' <stefan@aaa-sec.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2013 09:04:49 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook, Build 11.0.6353
Thread-Index: Ac459o9Y6jkc7WGMQB2fEYa3WL5qIgAdbSNQ
In-Reply-To: <20130415163023.463.80000.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.6157
X-NAI-Spam-Flag: NO
X-NAI-Spam-Level: ***
X-NAI-Spam-Threshold: 6
X-NAI-Spam-Score: 3.5
X-NAI-Spam-Version: 2.3.0.9362 : core <4550> : streams <942045> : uri <1395289>
Cc: pkix@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [pkix] I-D Action: draft-ietf-pkix-rfc2560bis-20.txt
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, 16 Apr 2013 07:04:56 -0000
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: pkix-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:pkix-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of internet-drafts@ietf.org Sent: Monday, April 15, 2013 6:30 PM To: i-d-announce@ietf.org Cc: pkix@ietf.org 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 pkix@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pkix
- [pkix] I-D Action: draft-ietf-pkix-rfc2560bis-20.… internet-drafts
- Re: [pkix] I-D Action: draft-ietf-pkix-rfc2560bis… Peter Rybar
- Re: [pkix] I-D Action: draft-ietf-pkix-rfc2560bis… Stefan Santesson