Subject: RE: OCSP identifiers

From: Michael Myers <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 11:39:30 -0800

On Tuesday, November 28, 2000 1:17 AM, Simon Tardell wrote:
> count me to the opposition then.

On Tuesday, November 28, 2000 8:46 AM, Peter Sylvester wrote:
> Mike, you may count me in a similar way as Denis.

All:

In addition, I spoke offlist with Paul Hoffman yesterday who made it clear
to me that my understanding of his opposition was in error. Paul never
voiced such an opinion on list.  So with respect to the question "Should RFC
2560's certID syntax be amended to accomodate other use cases" we have:

9  in favor (minus Tardell, plus Sylvester)
2  opposed  (minus Hoffman, plus Tardell)

Anyone else care to offer an opinion?

Mike

---

From: Stephen Kent <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 18:55:50 -0500

>Anyone else care to offer an opinion?

Yes,

I think there is ample support and technical rationale for this 
change, but it's significant enough to reset advancement for the OCSP 
document, i.e., v2 is a new standard.  You'll have to decide if it 
supercedes v1, etc.  I'm awfully far behind on my e-mail. so maybe 
I've missed this part of the debate, but what are the plans re OCSP 
v1, i.e., since we all loathe parallel, mostly equivalent versions of 
standards, is the proposal to replace v1 with v2, and denigrate the 
use of v1?

Just asking ...

Steve

---

From: Denis Pinkas <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 19:21:03 +0100

Steve,

(Text deleted)

> document, i.e., v2 is a new standard.  

i.e. a new protocol, not compatible with v1. Originally v2 was presented as
a refinement of v1, but it is not.

> You'll have to decide if it
> supercedes v1, etc.  I'm awfully far behind on my e-mail. 

Thank you for paying attention to this important aspect.

> so maybe

Mike's position is that v2 replaces v1. This would make all current v2
implementations obsolete and incompatible, hence why I have some concerns. 

> Just asking ...

Good question. :-)

Denis