[caops-wg] Version 06-09 of the OCSP document.

[Mike Helm]

> ...or otherwise invalid certificates from *being used*.
from use reads ok to me - maybe it's not recognized as standard in the UK?
> 
> ...OCSP services must be discoverable, fault tolerant and *have* low
> latency.

don't care, but why not "have fault tolerance" too?

> 3. Practical Considerations and Expectations
> ...presents a *scalability* problem...

Ok, but scalability seems to me like a concept applied to a particular service 
and scaling applied to a problem or a system as a whole.  So we need
a scalable solution to a scaling problem.  Maybe that's idiosyncratic
usage, sorry if so.

> 3.1 Certificate Revocation Lists
> ...somewhat like *a trusted* responder)...
No, this changes the sense, what was meant should perhaps have been
put in quotes then, like a "Trusted Responder (see below)"

> 7.1.2 OCSP Clearing house
> In order for such a service to be *trustworthy*...
trustable or trusted reads better to me;  "trustworthy by" doesn't 
seem right.

> 9 Other Considerations
> (I feel the first sentence is rather clunky - perhaps something like the
> following is better)
> While OCSP as a technology has been around for several years, *it has
> yet to make a significant impact to the Grid community.*

This sentence implies the wrong relationship
between OCSP & Grids.  It suggests that there is something wrong w/ OCSP
that has kept it "from use" in Grids.  That may be, but is yet to 
be shown.  The existing sentence may be phrased better somehow 
("if used are not..." is better verb agreement) but reflects the
sense of the relationship between Grids & OCSP better.