> o An Online Certificate Status Protocol (OCSP) [RFC6960] response
> extension (see Section 7.1.1), where the OCSP response is provided
> in the "CertificateStatus" message, provided that the TLS client
> included the "status_request" extension in the (extended)
> "ClientHello" (Section 8 of [RFC6066]). [...]
>
> This is not quite a TLS 1.3-compliant formulation -- TLS 1.3 does not use
the
> "CertificateStatus message", but rather uses the encoding of that
structure in a
> status_request extension in the CertificateEntry.
> draft-ietf-trans-rfc6962-bis
I haven't seen discussion of Ben's DISCUSS feedback
Oh come on now.
This draft has sat with no action for a very long time, and now someone is
supposed to rouse the authors, and the working group, to address a new RFC that
didn't exist (drafts did, yes). Compare the timelines of the two documents.
Close the group, and let the draft lie or publish the damn thing. What's going
on now is just cruel.
_______________________________________________
Trans mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/trans
