Subject: Re: [pkix] Concluding OCSP Agility

From: Stephen Kent <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 4 Apr 2011 15:48:23 -0400

Folks,

Jim made a good argument why SMIMECapabilties might be preferable to AlgID
in the context of advertising which algs are supported.  At the PKIX meeting
the ADs suggested that if we wanted to make this change to the OCSP 
agility doc (now in the RFC Editor's queue), that they would support 
this as a trivial
change, not requiring a new IETF LC, etc. (This is justified because 
only one alg would be different in a bits-on-the-wire sense, and it 
is not clear that we care about it anyway.)

So, I am now starting a 1-week LC on this issue. The LC will end 
Tuesday morning, 4/12.

Steve

>...
>I realize that I am late on this.
>
>The definition that I use for these two types are:
>
>SMIMECapabilities is what party A uses to request that party B uses 
>one of a set of algorithms in talking to it.
>
>AlgorithmIdentifier is what party A uses to tell party B what 
>algorithm is actually being used.
>
>This separation makes it clear (at least to me) exactly when one 
>should use each of these items.
>
>Jim
>

---

From: Stefan Santesson <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 04 Apr 2011 22:39:42 +0200

I will start off by saying that I'm divided.

I see the logic in Jim's arguments but liked the fact that the current
algorithm identifier directly maps to the identifiers that are specified
in other protocols which makes the mapping easier and possibly less error
prone when implemented.

I hope this LC will reveal some good arguments for either solution.

/Stefan

On 11-04-04 9:48 PM, "Stephen Kent" <[email-masked]> wrote:

>_______________________________________________
>pkix mailing list
>[email-masked]
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pkix

---

From: Stefan Santesson <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2011 23:12:26 +0200

OK,

So there are absolutely no opinions on this from PKIX members.
I had hoped otherwise.

I guess that is not enough strong voices for doing a change to the
document.

However. As long as the document has not passed Auth 48 the window for
change is still open.
Those feeling we need a change are encouraged to raise their voice.

/Stefan