Subject: RE: Initial comments on SCVP

From: Carlisle Adams <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 6 Jul 1999 10:32:50 -0400

Hi Michael,

> ----------
> From: 	[email-masked][SMTP:[email-masked]]
> Sent: 	Tuesday, July 06, 1999 2:24 AM
> To: 	[email-masked]; [email-masked]
> Subject: 	RE: Initial comments on SCVP
> 
> OCSP, SCVP, and now DCS. 
 
Actually, if memory serves me correctly, this should be, "DCS, OCSP, and now
SCVP."  :-)

> It appears that there is more commonality between
> the various protocol's goals, then there is difference. 
 
Yes; this is the problem.

> Even the authors of
> the drafts are apparently perplexed when trying to substantiate the work
> and
> to outline the distinction of one protocol from the others. Writing a
> [rough
> cut of a] road map would be a nightmare, I'm imagining. Or could it be a
> good, probably even a necessary thing to do at this stage, to see for
> ourselves where we are heading? 
 
Unfortunately, the PKIX roadmap document gets its input (primarily) from the
drafts themselves and from the authors of those drafts.  Thus, if the
authors appear perplexed to the rest of the group then it's not obvious that
a roadmap document could clear things up.

We should certainly continue discussion on this list, but I have a feeling
that face-to-face, real-time discussions will go some distance in resolving
this.  Should be a lively meeting next week!

Carlisle.

P.S., Al's note just arrived in my inbox.  I tend to prefer the
smaller-number-of-quite-general-protocols approach (which is why I've been
involved with CMP (originally intended to do every aspect of cert.
management) and with DCS (originally intended to do everything that TSP,
OCSP, and SCVP are trying to do, plus more)).  However, I certainly
recognize the merits of the many-many-simple-protocols approach for some
specialized or restricted environments.

I agree with Al.  The group should try to consciously choose a direction
(though perhaps it has subconsciously already chosen, since these simpler
protocols are getting proposed, reviewed, and progressed...).

---

From: "Peter Lipp" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 7 Jul 1999 22:18:15 +0200

> smaller-number-of-quite-general-protocols approach
Agreed .
What about something in the middle of it: a general protocol framework with
"subprotocols". One thing that I currently don't like is that all the
protocols are different. DCS uses PKCS#7 for signing the request, OCSP
doesn't but still uses ASN.1 and SCVP does neither. Hmm. Makes me wonder.

Peter
---------------------------------
Dr. Peter Lipp
IAIK, TU Graz
Email [email-masked]
Phone +43 316 873 5513
Fax   +43 316 873 5510
Web   http://jcewww.iaik.tu-graz.ac.at