Subject: RE: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-pkix-certstore-http-02.txt

From: [email-masked] (Peter Gutmann)
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 02:20:08 +1300 (NZDT)

"Deacon, Alex" <[email-masked]> writes:

>I would prefer we use the existing PKCS7/CMS formats.  However, why should we
>force the client/user to choose one way or the other?  Can't we add an
>optional "response attribute" to enable the client to tell the server what
>format it wants to deal with?

There are two problems with this:

- It adds unnecessary complexity to the query processing (it's not just a
  simple <attribute>=<value> any more).

- It makes it even worse than before, because now instead of having to support
  one of the two (right or wrong, depending on personal opinion) you have to
  support both.

Peter.

---

From: Phil Griffin <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2002 10:21:58 -0500

>   one of the two (right or wrong, depending on personal opinion) you have to

Peter,

From a purely philosophical bent, I agree. But as 
a practical matter, supporting both (or either one
or the other - it IS a choice really) is the least
of the complexity concerns in this setting. 

We're talking about X.509 Certificates and PKCS #7
for crying out loud. Both are small craft warnings.
Neither should be recommended to the faint hearted.

Phil :-)