[caops-wg] Fwd: Protocol Action: 'Server-based Certificate Validation Protocol (SCVP)' to Proposed Standard

[Alan Sill]

FYI.  Given problems we have seen in path validation and certificate  
revocation enforcement policies and practical features in grid  
software implementations, it might prove worthwhile to investigate  
and study this document, which I believe is now up for the RFC process.

I'm not sure where discussion of this topic should take place.  OGF?

Yours,
Alan

Begin forwarded message:

> From: The IESG <iesg-secretary at ietf.org>
> Date: September 25, 2007 2:06:25 PM CDT
> To: IETF-Announce <ietf-announce at ietf.org>
> Cc: Internet Architecture Board <iab at iab.org>, RFC Editor <rfc- 
> editor at rfc-editor.org>, pkix mailing list <ietf-pkix at imc.org>, pkix  
> chair <pkix-chairs at tools.ietf.org>
> Subject: Protocol Action: 'Server-based Certificate Validation   
> Protocol (SCVP)' to Proposed Standard
>
>
> The IESG has approved the following document:
>
> - 'Server-based Certificate Validation Protocol (SCVP) '
>    <draft-ietf-pkix-scvp-33.txt> as a Proposed Standard
>
> This document is the product of the Public-Key Infrastructure (X.509)
> Working Group.
>
> The IESG contact persons are Sam Hartman and Tim Polk.
>
> A URL of this Internet-Draft is:
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-pkix-scvp-33.txt
>
> Technical Summary
>
>    SCVP allows a client to delegate certificate path construction and
>    certificate path validation to a server.  The path construction or
>    validation (e.g., making sure that none of the certificates in the
>    path are revoked) is performed according to a validation policy,
>    which contains one or more trust anchors.  It allows simplification
>    of client implementations and use of a set of predefined validation
>    policies.
>
> Working Group Summary
>
>    The working group expressed consensus to advance the draft to
>    Proposed Standard.  Two participants raised concerns that this
>    protocol did  not meet all the requirements of RFC 3379 and  
> introduced
>
>    significant new features.  The working group investigated this  
> claim
>    and concluded that after minor revisions this document does meet  
> the
>    requirements and does not introduce significant new features.
>
> Protocol Quality
>
>    This document has been reviewed by members of the ietf-pkix at imc.org
>    mailing list and by the working group chairs. The protocol seems
> reasonable.  This has been reviewed by Sam Hartman for the IESG.
>

Alan Sill, Ph.D
TIGRE Senior Scientist, High Performance Computing Center
Adjunct Professor of Physics
TTU

====================================================================
:  Alan Sill, Texas Tech University  Office: Admin 233, MS 4-1167  :
:  e-mail: Alan.Sill at ttu.edu   ph. 806-742-4350  fax 806-742-4358  :
====================================================================