Subject: RE: OCSP identifiers

From: Michael Myers <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2000 23:09:21 -0800

All,

This thread has drifted away from its original intent.  The question is, the
OCSPv2 authors propose one means of expanding RFC2560's certID syntax,
recognizing that doing so would cycle RFC2560 at proposed vs. moving it
forward.  OCSPv2's expanded certificate identification syntax remains as
proposed in the absence of rough consensus in support of alternatives.  Last
call will be asked for in San Diego based on this request, so please take
take 1/2 hour or so to read through the drafts and make your opinions known
on the list regarding the certID issue as this will feed into our San Diego
meeting.

Mike

PS:  BTW, "OCSPv2 authors" is and will continue to include our very dear
friend Rich Ankney.

---

From: Denis Pinkas <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2000 10:38:27 +0100

Michael,

> proposed in the absence of rough consensus in support of alternatives.

I do not see this as a reason of keeping a proposal which does not meet
either a rough consensus. We will certainly discuss this issue (among
others) at the San Diego meeting.

BTW, here an extract from your E-mail from Fri, 17 Nov 2000 (RE: DPV vs SCV)
:

[Denis]: DPV and DPD can only be considered as extensions, if you agree with
the meaning of the status I explained in two E-mails sent to you. I am still
awaiting a detailed response from you on this matter, and globally on my
previous E-mail.

[Mike]: I had hoped that you considered my prior emails as responsive. Some
of your comments I didn't take to be actionable in the absence of a broader
consensus.  I'll take another look at them today to see if I missed
something obvious.

I am still awaiting a response.

Denis

>  Last