Re: [lamps] Revocation Request Format?

Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie> Fri, 02 March 2018 21:46 UTC

Return-Path: <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
X-Original-To: spasm@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: spasm@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D289512025C for <spasm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 2 Mar 2018 13:46:01 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.311
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.311 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cs.tcd.ie
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id dBoARPEv_Z6X for <spasm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 2 Mar 2018 13:46:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mercury.scss.tcd.ie (mercury.scss.tcd.ie [134.226.56.6]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EBDA01200E5 for <SPASM@ietf.org>; Fri, 2 Mar 2018 13:45:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mercury.scss.tcd.ie (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7354FBE51; Fri, 2 Mar 2018 21:45:57 +0000 (GMT)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at scss.tcd.ie
Received: from mercury.scss.tcd.ie ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mercury.scss.tcd.ie [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id PTvVrEQDO5BF; Fri, 2 Mar 2018 21:45:56 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from [10.200.0.239] (unknown [193.180.218.196]) by mercury.scss.tcd.ie (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 0701BBE3E; Fri, 2 Mar 2018 21:45:55 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cs.tcd.ie; s=mail; t=1520027156; bh=gMWhJGXuR9KiLBlI38VyLzOO1E9W98s5Deum7mc0AGg=; h=Subject:To:Cc:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=ImfXzXiH/LMcIQuYpvC/BtTuOTPNWIGVGwYatfDFtrwoEfmWFtnyAjUUNUZ+no2lb N13VAOBgVgA5TCkrAJGGitKMJAc3vjvwPwFBVjfecZJjE9SPE3Ni31xnTlPXEy08C9 6toVMSGMmW3+OzMFgtqNTCxBHLnjuAfNCdq9D+D4=
To: Ryan Sleevi <ryan-ietf@sleevi.com>, Phillip Hallam-Baker <phill@hallambaker.com>
Cc: SPASM <SPASM@ietf.org>, Peter Bowen <pzbowen@gmail.com>
References: <CAMm+LwjAP78hNL9Yaxqaf4K9RHYGk4M8ayJjCWt=F3_VN28cFQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAErg=HEK0aJm+Xb06px=vmfpyESetdRpe2x=q+Wca=9J8nErmw@mail.gmail.com> <CAK6vND8p55yNVoXO6_eJs1ooodVBAFZovJ84ou6uj_4qHt5DGA@mail.gmail.com> <CAMm+LwjKKqaG+OjSw3KaSvwymy6mvvyEDx1sMp2EGqXqvPSdjA@mail.gmail.com> <CAErg=HFBWaSV5-mJCBO8fLP3esfnseiqqJ_Fh1x78BW9=P-kUQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
Openpgp: id=5BB5A6EA5765D2C5863CAE275AB2FAF17B172BEA; url=
Message-ID: <26f237b9-bbe6-6efe-2a43-394d44e8334c@cs.tcd.ie>
Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2018 21:45:55 +0000
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAErg=HFBWaSV5-mJCBO8fLP3esfnseiqqJ_Fh1x78BW9=P-kUQ@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="Wj1w32VDzomsj80p8Dzp1tpBghYIYiR4I"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spasm/G6WOBxu7bnWWheMNEKcWU6uWd4k>
Subject: Re: [lamps] Revocation Request Format?
X-BeenThere: spasm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: "This is a venue for discussion of doing Some Pkix And SMime \(spasm\) work." <spasm.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/spasm>, <mailto:spasm-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/spasm/>
List-Post: <mailto:spasm@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:spasm-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spasm>, <mailto:spasm-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 02 Mar 2018 21:46:02 -0000


On 02/03/18 21:19, Ryan Sleevi wrote:
> Because it's a demonstration of compromise. Any attempt to define how that
> demonstration of compromise is proved (which I think is *bad*
> standardization) is to make it more difficult to report or demonstrate
> compromise.

I don't understand the "any" in the above.

Can you clarify?

Ta,
S.