I think it's disingenuous to claim that MASS PKI problems have been
solved when nothing on this scale has ever been deployed.
Mark
On Feb 25, 2005, at 1:07 PM, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
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
certificates.
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
CRLs.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-ietf-mailsig(_at_)mail(_dot_)imc(_dot_)org
[mailto:owner-ietf-mailsig(_at_)mail(_dot_)imc(_dot_)org] On Behalf Of Douglas
Otis
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.
http://www.kelkea.com/ietf/draft-otis-mass-reputation-00.html
http://www.kelkea.com/ietf/draft-otis-mass-reputation-00.txt
-Doug