Re: [lamps] Revocation Request Format?

[Stephen Farrell <[e-mail]>]

Coupla minor notes below...

On 05/03/18 09:31, Tim Hollebeek wrote:
> I agree with this.  There’s no need to rush into anything as no
> buildings are currently burning down, but some of the things people
> are doing are slightly silly, and it would be worthwhile to come up
> with a set of potentially non-silly things, and look at the
> advantages/disadvantages of each.
> 
> 
> 
> It might be good to start with a Use Cases document first, to figure
> out who the participants/constituents would be. 

I'm not convinced that a use-cases document/draft would be useful,
just on the basis that, in the IETF context, those often tend to
produce text that ends up ignored (or OBE). But if someone has the
interest and cycles to write such text, then that's up to them and
maybe it'd be useful in this case, not sure. When it exists, I guess
I'd read it.

> This would align with
> Stephen’s remark re: what writers of private key handling s/w should
> use. 

I think s/should use/would use/ is more in line with what I meant to
say, both for CAs and those writing/using private key handling s/w.
Put another way, there's a lot of things we could say such folks
"should" do, but there's little point in doing so unless they would
actually do stuff.

Cheers,
S.


> Considering such solutions naturally preclude solving (some of)
> the “compromise” scenarios that must be dealt with today, the merits
> of those use cases could be independently evaluated before trying to
> shape such work.
> 
> 
> 
>