Subject: RE: OCSPv1 and nonces (RE: draft meeting minutes)

From: "Ryan M. Hurst" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2003 18:55:50 -0800

You are right, should not does mean not recomended however the likley impact is that clients that do this will not be able to interoperate with the existing servers out there.
 
Maybe we should do a straw pole to determin what servers will do if they get the nonce marked critical.
 
Ryan

________________________________

From: [email-masked] on behalf of Marc Branchaud
Sent: Fri 11/21/2003 2:41 PM
To: Russ Housley
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: OCSPv1 and nonces (RE: draft meeting minutes)

Russ Housley wrote:
>
> Section 4.1.2  of RFC 2560 says:
>
>    Support for any specific extension is OPTIONAL. The critical flag
>    SHOULD NOT be set for any of them.

I think that allowing critical nonces in requests is perfectly
compatible with that SHOULD NOT statement.

RFC2119 sez:

4. SHOULD NOT   This phrase, or the phrase "NOT RECOMMENDED" mean that
    there may exist valid reasons in particular circumstances when the
    particular behavior is acceptable or even useful, but the full
    implications should be understood and the case carefully weighed
    before implementing any behavior described with this label.

I think that we have a valid reason to use the critical flag here.

                M.

---

From: Marc Branchaud <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2003 09:12:33 -0800

Ryan M. Hurst wrote:
> You are right, should not does mean not recomended however the likley 
> impact is that clients that do this will not be able to interoperate 
> with the existing servers out there.

They'll only be uninteroperable with servers that don't support nonces, 
which is exactly what we want.

The client would in any case be free to resend the query without the 
nonce, and the client could retain the fact that the server doesn't 
support nonces.

		M.