Subject: Re: Discussing RTCS

From: [email-masked] (Peter Gutmann)
Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2003 23:02:32 +1200

Denis Pinkas <[email-masked]> writes:

>This is a topic to be addressed by the PKIX WG, not by the SMIME WG.

We already tried that, but you made sure it wouldn't work.

For those who aren't on the PKIX list, a short summary:

- Denis has some sort of rabid opposition to what RTCS does.  I had private
  mail from another PKIX member to say that RTCS' crime is that it provides a
  basic yes/no response rather than a CRL-style revoked/not revoked/maybe/
  maybe not response.  Someone else thought that it was because it made OCSP
  look bad.  I'm not sure what it really is.

- The result of this was a series of increasingly hysterical attacks by Denis
  on RTCS, using every reason he could dream up (see the PKIX list from late
  last year some time).  The highlights were him posting several messages in
  which he quoted sections of text and claimed the exact opposite of what the
  text said.  In one message I got a quote of him saying something wasn't
  possible, after which I had another quote of him saying the exact opposite
  earlier on.  You get the idea... the debate wasn't very coherent, or useful,
  except perhaps for amusement value.

- When his hissy fit on the list failed, he tried a private appeal to the WG
  chair to get it killed.

- The only (unfortunate) effect of his fit was that it drove most of the
  discussion into private mail, because no-one (apart from me apparently :-)
  wanted to become the target of his attacks.  I did, however, get some good
  feedback, which made it into the new draft.

So because of Denis it isn't really possible to have any coherent discussion
on the PKIX list.  My last message to him on that list was:

  It's obvious from your messages (and others have commented on this as well)
  that you've barely read the RTCS draft (if at all), and even then only to
  pick out bits to complain about.  The posting of obviously incorrect claims
  such as the ones cited above aren't helping your credibility much either.

As the next sentence from his current post shows:

  The advantages of this new protocol versus draft-ietf-pkix-ocspv2-ext-01.txt
  (Online Certificate Status Protocol, version 2) and the differences should
  be first explained.

he still hasen't actually read the draft.  Hint for Denis: The answer to your
question is in Section 2, right after the Abstract, which is section 1.  I'm
now pointing this out for the third (or fourth) time, but I doubt it'll make
any difference.

So to summarise: Denis has some sort of strong religious objection to RTCS.
He will engage in whatever hysterics he thinks necessary to attack it.  If
anyone wants to see the rest, see the PKIX thread on this (or wait for Denis'
next message).

Peter (sorry for the sarcasm and whatnot, but I was hoping he'd finalled given
       up after the last time... it's like listening to a broken record.  In
       the meantime, as ever, I welcome constructive feedback on RTCS).