Subject: Re: Two questions on delta-CRL

From: David Kemp <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 14:08:56 -0500 (EST)

Russ,

I'm not in favor of standards documents splitting hairs.  So if
"issued" equals "distributed", then new-part-1 MUST be modified
so that it agrees with X.509, in order to enable delta-CRLs to
serve any useful purpose.

It makes sense to issue (and push to a global directory) full CRLs
every 24 hours and deltas every 15 minutes.  It makes NO sense to
push full CRLs every 15 minutes, in addition to the deltas.

Dave

From: Russ Housley <[email-masked]>
> 
> <html>
> I think we may be splitting hairs on the term &quot;issue.&quot; I am not
> sure that I would consider a CRL that was generated but not distributed
> to be &quot;issued.&quot;<br>

---

From: Russ Housley <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 13:51:07 -0500

Dave:

I understand your operational issue.  This was never raised during 
discussions prior to RFC 2459 being issued.  Perhaps that is because we 
each thought that the words meant something different.  I would like to 
make sure that son-of-RFC 2458 reflects the consensus (regardless of it 
being a change to RFC 2459 or not).

Russ