Subject: Re: Candidate for moving OCSP to a Draft Standard

From: Denis Pinkas <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 06 Feb 2002 16:38:24 +0100

Peter,

> >2) The "good" status has always been misleading. The text says:

> >   The "good" state indicates that the certificate has not been revoked.

> >According to this definition, which is correct, an unambiguous status would
> >better be called: "not revoked" rather than "good".
 
> Uh-oh, the OCSP-status-debate perpetual motion machine has started again :-).
> In case anyone's interested, I've been using a private extension which tries to
> fix the OCSP status problems, for about a year or so.  It's very simple, just a
> boolean when says that the certificate in question exists and is currently
> valid (ie was issued and hasn't expired, been revoked, or whatever).  This was
> rejected for addition to OCSP, but if anyone else is interested in adding
> support for this I'll post the details.

Uh-oh, the OCSP-status-debate about "certificate exists" has started again
:-).
Let us close this debate. :-)

Denis

> Peter.

---

From: [email-masked] (Peter Gutmann)
Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2002 04:25:20 +1300 (NZDT)

Peter.

---

From: "Florian Oelmaier" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2002 19:46:21 +0100

Advantage of OCSP: extensible.

Idea: Use advantages heavily.

Conclusion: Interested in Peter Gutmanns extension.

:) So Peter, plz post the extension and the derscription. Best to the list -
then it is somewhat half-official and a lot of other people in the community
can use it, too.

--
Dipl.Inf. Florian Oelmaier
Head of Development
syTrust S.A.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked]
> [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of Peter Gutmann
> Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2002 4:25 PM
> To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: Candidate for moving OCSP to a Draft Standard
>
>
>

---

From: "Khaja E. Ahmed" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2002 19:21:52 -0800

This sounds like a perfectly reasonable solution. Surprised it was rejected.
After-all this would be an optional extension, why not add it?  ...if for no
other reason than that it would put an end to the 'good' is not good enough
debate.

Khaja

> Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2002 7:25 AM