Subject: RE: SCVP additions

From: Peter Sylvester <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2003 18:43:58 +0100 (MET)

hello,

It would be nice to hear whether all or which comments
about SCVP have been addressed. Unless I have overlooked
something, my remarks about the definitions of requestor
and responder have not received any treatment. 

I simplify the content of my comments:

requestor and responder should be GENERALNAMES which
indicate and identify in global the partipating parties.  

IMO Using arbitrary octets with only LOCAL significance
is not compatible with the procedure to detect loops.

4.6 indicates the there MUST NOt be null characters,
something which is explicitly allowed for a server
acting as a relay.

What is the sense of 4.7? The responder field is
never used anywhere in the actual protocol, what
is the meaning of such an opaque value?

4.8.5 What is the reason of having an additional octet string
encapsulation instead of an any defined by construct? Is it
that some tools may break decodeing when they find an OID
that is not known? If so, whay are there ANY DEFINED BYs at
other places?

can someone indicate me how a relay would return the response
of the next server to a client as part of his response?

regards