Agreed. The text, however incorrectly states "revoked" status is still optional in this context in order to maintain backwards compatibility with deployments of RFC 2560.'
Please note the subtle difference between being backward compatible with deployments and being compliant with standards. > -----Original Message----- > From: Stefan Santesson [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Friday, March 29, 2013 5:21 PM > To: Piyush Jain; 'Black, David'; [email protected]; [email protected]; > [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; > [email protected] > Cc: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [pkix] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-pkix-rfc2560bis-15 > > Legacy servers would not comply with RFC2560bis IF revoked response for > non issued certs would be required. > > /Stefan > > On 3/29/13 10:06 PM, "Piyush Jain" <[email protected]> wrote: > > >Not sure if I understand. > >Are you saying legacy servers won't work with 2560bis clients? > > > >> On 3/29/13 6:12 PM, "Piyush Jain" <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > >> >It is your statement about backward compatibility to justify it that > >> >is incorrect. > >> >Backward compatibility "with deployments of RFC2560" is not affected > >> >in either case. Legacy clients will continue to work whether you > >> >make it required or optional. > >> > >> Legacy servers won't > >> > >> /Stefan > >> > > > > > _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
