RV: [caops-wg] Re: Grid OCSP proposal

[Oscar Manso]

Olle Mulmo wrote:

> To avoid confusion: Please make use of proper terminology when such is 
> defined (for once).

OK, in fact we are attaching a corrected version of the working document 
that includes a section called "Definitions", precisely to use a common 
technical vocabulary. Also according to our last email, we've deleted 
references to the "OCSP Extensions" proposal.

>
> The proper name for the "trust chaining" scenario is called 
> "Authorized responder", and the authorization is marked by the CA via 
> the inclusion of the ocsp-signing extended key usage.

Thanks, we've already included this in the "Definitions" section.

> [...]
>
> One responder being authorized by multiple CAs is a perfectly legal 
> and reasonably common mode of operation. I know of at least one 
> commercial software (the one that I wrote...) that supports both the 
> case of all CAs signing a single key pair, and the responder having 
> multiple signing keys simultaneously, selecting the appropriate on 
> depending on which certificate that status is requested for.

We agree, it is also the same implementation that we've done at CertiVeR.

>
> /Olle


Best regards,
Jesus & Oscar.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: OCSP_Requirements_for_Grids_jlg.doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 125440 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://www.ogf.org/pipermail/caops-wg/attachments/20050321/96b0a015/attachment.doc