Subject: Re: OCSP and LDAP

From: [email-masked]
Date: Sun, 5 Jan 2003 07:52:32 -0700

but as been discussed in other venues ... it is not only the cost ... but
also who pays (how does the money flow). does a consumer pay for checking a
merchant's certificate as part of access the merchant's website .... which
might otherwise be free access? A merchant (as the relying party) might pay
when checking the status of a consumer's certificate .... but does a
consumer (as the relying party) pay when checking the status of a
merchant's certificate..  Also ... as in other merchant/consumer e-commerce
discussions .... a merchant's interest in the status (real-time or not) of
a consumer's certificate is only incidental to whether the bank says that
the merchant gets paid.

now the other business flow as a certificate, offline, stale paradigm is
pushed towards an online, real-time model .... there is a question of what
point does the paradigm switch. In the original offline credit-card
paradigm .... the transition to online, real-time .... bypassed the
real-time checking on whether the offline, stale credential was still good
... and/or whether the stale assertions in the offline credential was still
good .... but whether the real-time assertions were valid.

The model in the certificate ... is that there are some assertions that are
inserted into a stale, static certificate at some time in the past .... and
for OCSP ... you do real-time checks to see if the stale, static past
assertions still hold. The model that credit-cards went to .... was doing
real-time checks on real-time assertions ... not real-time checks on
real-time stale, static assertions.

The distinction is that the payment card paradigm in moving to online ...
bypassed the intermediate paradigm of real-time checks on past, stale,
historic, static assertions (contined in the certificate) .... and went
directly to real-time checks on current, real-time assertions, aka the
credit-card industry in transitioning to online .... could have continued
to preserve the offline paradigm with real time checks (like OCSP does for
certificates) .... which is equivalent to a real-time check to see if the
consumer still has a valid account.  However, the payment card industry in
transitioning to online discovered that they could significantly leverage
the utility of having real-time, online checking .... that instead of
having real-time, online checking of stale, static information ....
significantly increase the utility of having real-time checking of
real-time information.

So the credit-card industry skipped the OCSP-analogous step of having a
real-time infrastructure for checking of stale, static data (aka does an
account still exist), and significantly improved the utility of having an
online, real-time infrastructure ... and performing real-time checking of
what the merchant is really interested in .... will they get paid. An issue
is whether the value of having a real-time online infrastructure is
significantly depreciated if it is just being applied to checking status of
static, stale information .... when for effectively the same infrastructure
costs .... it can be used for real-time, online checking of real-time
dynamic information (under the assumption that real-time checking of
real-time dynamic information tends to have more value than real-time
checking of static, stale information).

... i believe that the charge/chost at supermarket check-out for debit card
transaction doing real-time checking for sufficient funds for the
transaction (rather than just checking if the account still exists)
as well as scheduling the transaction .... the charge/cost for
both/combined ... is on the order of your projected lookup costs.

If the online, real-time validation of real-time dynamic assertion (rather
the real-time validation of static, stale assertion) can be bundled with
the actual execution of real transaction .... and be bundled for
essentially the same cost of doing just online, real-time lookup of static,
stale data .... then it would imply that static, stale data paradigm would
be somewhat redundant and superfulous in an online, real-time environment.

--
Internet trivia, 20th anv: http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/rfcietff.htm

[email-masked] on 1/5/2002 2:44 am wrote:

I agree with Peter.

I don't think OCSP in a not so distant future have to be more technically
costly than accessing a web-page.  Including a signed answer.

Some banks in Sweden believe 20 cents/lookup is a reasonable fee as it is
"comparable to putting a stamp on a letter".

Personally I don't think the VA-business model has much future as it
complicates they way parties interact.  It essentially requires two or
three global VA-networks in the world to function and that seems very
unlikely to happen.  It feels like the VA business model is crafted
according to the lines of credit-card authorizations, but that is a rather
different type of business IMHO.

Pardon the slightly orthogonal input, but business & technology do have
rather interesting connections...

Anders

---

From: "Anders Rundgren" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 5 Jan 2003 17:28:43 +0100

Ok Lynn,
I believe we have heard this one a couple times before or so :-)

But, there *is* (believe it or not) a world *outside* of payment-
transactions.

Like e-governments having citizens typically using TTP-issued
certificates _authenticating_ to various services.

In case you want to respond to this, make a _SHORT_ note why
OCSP would _NOT_ fit (=be redundant in) the scenario above.

Now I must go back to my rost, it is time to party :-)

Anders

----- Original Message -----
From: <[email-masked]>
To: "Anders Rundgren" <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>; "Peter Gutmann"
<[email-masked]>
Sent: Sunday, January 05, 2003 15:52
Subject: Re: OCSP and LDAP

I agree with Peter.

Anders

---

From: "Ambarish Malpani" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 5 Jan 2003 11:15:49 -0800

Hi Lynn,
    Not sure why you associate OCSP with stale information. The
responder can have as current information as you choose to provide
it.

Once again, I believe it makes sense to have the interaction
between the CA and the VA be CRLs. If there is more
current information you have (than is present in the CRL), it
makes sense to have that information at the VA for use until a
new CRL is produced.

Ambarish

P.S. We have also had people use their OCSP responder to provide
more than just certificate revocation information (eg. payment
authorization) using extensions to OCSP.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Ambarish Malpani                                         650.759.9045
Malpani Consulting Services                      [email-masked]
http://www.malpani.biz

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked]
> [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of
> [email-masked]
> Sent: Sunday, January 05, 2003 6:53 AM
> To: Anders Rundgren
> Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked];
> [email-masked]; Peter Gutmann