Subject: RE: What happened to the OCSPv2 draft?

From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2002 11:25:40 -0700

The premise of the original OCSP redesign was to make it extensible.
Ambarish was the main advocate of the modifications.

Now that people are saying that extending OCSP is not the way to support
related certificate status and validity type functions and Ambarish has
proposed creating yet another protocol. Those of us who had the extension
mechanism forced on us have the right to form a judgement on the matter.

This type of thing is only one example of the sort of never-ending tinkering
that will happen if a group continues after all its milestones have been
achieved. It is time for this group to declare victory and close. I do not
believe that further work in this forum is going to result in any
improvement of the drafts and is most likely to make things worse.

Give the authors of the various drafts a couple of months to get the best
efforts in and then have a humm poll at the spring IETF on which ones
crossed the line in terms of being acceptably complete. Anything that fails
to meet the deadline has to persuade the IESG to let them form a new working
group or submit the idea as an X.509 defect report.

		Phill 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Wednesday, September 11, 2002 8:09 AM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: What happened to the OCSPv2 draft?
> 
> 
> 
> This seems to have died at -02, there are hints of a -03 but 
> no copies remain,
> and the -02 draft is 1 1/2 years old.
> 
> (The reason I'd like to get a later version is that the -02 
> draft mixes up
>  explicit and implicit tagging, and I'd like to see whether a 
> newer version
>  includes an ASN.1 module which clarifies what's actually 
> being used.  The
>  -02 draft doesn't).
> 
> Peter.
>

---

From: Stephen Kent <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2002 14:55:01 -0400

>group or submit the idea as an X.509 defect report.

By my count, that's two messages in a row from you on the theme of 
"let's kill off the PKIX WG."  Your first message claimed that we are 
pursuing standardization of any protocol that uses ASN.1. All the 
work we have pursued is PKI-based, including the warranty extension, 
DPV/DPD, proxy certs, time stamp policies, etc.  So, that comment is 
patently false.

The future of OCSPv2 and its relevance to to the question of the 
future of this WG is equally silly.

Have you been hanging out with Todd?

Steve