On Wed, 18 Apr 2007, Deacon, Alex wrote:
Hi Lucy,
I'll post -10 this afternoon. Comments in line....
nice!
<snip>
Review Comments:
One small area of confusion. Is there a potential for a gap
in timely update given both a "tolerance period" (sec 3) and
"using the cache-control:max-age directive (sec 5.1) in
time-based calculations ???
Sorry if I'm being dense here.
The requirement for timely updates of OCSP responses falls on the OCSP
responder. The requirement in 5.1 simply ensures that the responder
actually have a newly minted response available before clients starting
asking for updates. The requirement for the client is to properly
validate the signed response taking into account any (optional)
tolerance period as described in section 3. There should not be a gap,
but in the case there is it will be detected by the client upon
proper/standard ocsp response validation.
makes complete sense when you put it that way...
Other Remarks:
Learn something new every time: sec 5 "aka stapling". Cool.
Great! Thanks again.
thanks for the quick update.
cheers -
Alex
- Lucy
_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
