From: Dr S N Henson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

drh> > :-) Actually, for the "Trusted Responder" case, one shouldn't even
drh> > need to handle an OCSP signing certificate.  Read that line again, all
drh> > it says is "pubkey".  It says absolutely nothing about certificates in
drh> > that particular case.  I could as well configure my client software
drh> > with a key.pem that contains exactly this:
drh> > 
drh> >      -----BEGIN PUBLIC KEY-----
drh> >      ...
drh> > 
drh> >      -----END PUBLIC KEY-----
drh> > 
drh> > ... and it should be happy with that.  That's what RFC2560 really
drh> > implies.  One would just do it via certificates because it's more
drh> > comfortable that way...
drh> > 
drh> 
drh> There are also problems with just using public keys. You need some way
drh> to determine which public key signed the OCSP response. If the response
drh> doesn't include the signer's certificate and it is identified by the
drh> subject name (which is true in all the examples I've seen so far) then
drh> you can't do that with just the public key.

Of course not.  On the other hand, the OCSP servers I've seen being
set up with this mechanism always used byKey, never byName (IIRC).

-- 
Richard Levitte   \ Spannv�gen 38, II \ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Chairman@Stacken   \ S-168 35  BROMMA  \ T: +46-8-26 52 47
Redakteur@Stacken   \      SWEDEN       \ or +46-709-50 36 10
Procurator Odiosus Ex Infernis                -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Member of the OpenSSL development team: http://www.openssl.org/
Software Engineer, Celo Communications: http://www.celocom.com/

Unsolicited commercial email is subject to an archival fee of $400.
See <http://www.stacken.kth.se/~levitte/mail/> for more info.
______________________________________________________________________
OpenSSL Project                                 http://www.openssl.org
Development Mailing List                       [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Automated List Manager                           [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Reply via email to