Subject: Re: [wpkops] Some questions about revocation reasons

From: Peter Gutmann <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2013 02:33:20 +0000

Phillip Hallam-Baker <[email-masked]> 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.

Peter.

---

From: Phillip Hallam-Baker <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 6 Jun 2013 23:05:49 -0400

> 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/