I agree with Denis, this is a certificate validation issue and as such
belongs in the PKIX WG if to be standardized by the IETF. I think that
we can provide a review of the document if requested for it's usage of
CMS, but not it's general suitablity.
jim
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-ietf-smime(_at_)mail(_dot_)imc(_dot_)org
[mailto:owner-ietf-smime(_at_)mail(_dot_)imc(_dot_)org] On Behalf Of Denis
Pinkas
Sent: Tuesday, July 15, 2003 10:29 AM
To: Sean P. Turner
Cc: ietf-smime(_at_)imc(_dot_)org; pkix
Subject: Re: Discussing RTCS
Sean,
Does anyone have an opinion on bringing this to the working group?
This is a topic to be addressed by the PKIX WG, not by the SMIME WG.
The PKIX WG is attempting (but not always succeeding) to
avoid duplication
of protocols for the same topic.
We all know that it would have been better to use CMS for
building the OCSP
protocol, but this was not the case.
The advantages of this new protocol versus
draft-ietf-pkix-ocspv2-ext-01.txt
(Online Certificate Status Protocol, version 2) and the
differences should
be first explained.
Denis
spt
Blake Ramsdell wrote:
Peter Gutmann has made an individual draft submission for his
CMS-based RTCS protocol. A URL to this draft is:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-gutmann-cms-rtcs-00.txt
He would like to get some review of the CMS parts of this, and it
seems reasonable to discuss it here on the IETF-SMIME list
if there is
interest.
Since this draft is CMS based and potentially adds value to CMS or
S/MIME in general, should we consider bringing it into this working
group?
Comments?
Blake
--
Blake Ramsdell | Brute Squad Labs | http://www.brutesquadlabs.com