Re: mistake in RFC 3126

This definitely looks like an error to me.

Russ


At 10:27 AM 2/13/2003 +0100, Petra Barzin wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I think there is a mistake in RFC 3126 - Electronic Signature
> Formats for long term electronic signatures. The definition of the
> RevocationValues attribute is as follows:
>
>   RevocationValues ::=  SEQUENCE {
>       crlVals           [0] SEQUENCE OF CertificateList     OPTIONAL,
>       ocspVals          [1] SEQUENCE OF BasicOCSPResponse   OPTIONAL,
>       otherRevVals      [2] OtherRevVals
>    }
>
> Shouldn't the other revocation values be optional as well?
> Did I miss something or am I right?
>
> Best regards - Petra Barzin