Perhaps you should take the time to study the developments in PKI since 1995
before publishing the draft.
In particular you should look at OCSP which entirely eliminates the issues
you raise wrt CRL size and has been deployed at very large scale. You should
also look at XKMS which has similar operational requirements to OCSP but
provides support for the complete key lifecycle and eliminates the need for
Clearly a key centric PKI that is built on the legacy DNS system is not
going to be as satisfactory as a PKI as a purpose built Web Service such as
XKMS. There is however no reason why we cannot use DNS for the cases it can
support and migrate to XKMS for more comprehensive support.
Given that certificate revocation technology is built into Windows since Win
2000 the CA industry is well aware of the operational difficulties raised by
[mailto:owner-ietf-mailsig(_at_)mail(_dot_)imc(_dot_)org] On Behalf Of
Sent: Friday, February 25, 2005 3:30 PM
To: Dave Crocker
Cc: MASS WG
Subject: Re: In response to Housley-mass-sec-review
Here is a first pass at putting together a document. Any
feedback is welcome.
As this was completed beyond the IETF draft cutoff date,
these links reference the draft.