On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 10:33 PM, Peter Gutmann <[email protected]>wrote:
> Phillip Hallam-Baker <[email protected]> writes: > > >This is getting to be a little more complicated than I thought. Rather > than > >plough on into yet more weeds, perhaps it might help to put out a very > early > >albeit very incomplete draft tomorrow so people can see what the weeds > look > >like? > > You'd have to be sure to cover all the types, CRLs, indirect CRLs, delta > CRLs, > authority CRLs, chipotle CRLs, streaky-bacon CRLs, thousand-island CRLs, > chunky CRLs, extra-chunky CRLs, barbeque CRLs, salt-and-vinegar CRLs, > balsamic-vinaigrette CRLs, organic-sea-salt CRLs, and barium-enema CRLs > (the > latter for CAs like Diginotar). > > >Now Rob is going to tell me X.509... But I don't want to read that > because I > >am pretty certain the majority of client side implementers did not. > > Given some of the certificate implementations I've had to interop with, I'm > not sure how many client side implementers have read 5280. Well I know that the number who have read 5280 is greater than zero which means that it is more than have read X.509v3. -- Website: http://hallambaker.com/
_______________________________________________ wpkops mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/wpkops
