we need explicit schema support (in Signature 1.1) for explicit OCSP responses, for the latter a processing rule in widgets signature may be enough. Perhaps this does not need to be required must in the widgets spec, depends on requirements. Mark, I believe you mentioned you have additional thoughts on these requirements. regards, Frederick Frederick Hirsch Nokia On Feb 4, 2009, at 3:49 PM, ext Thomas Roessler wrote: > On 4 Feb 2009, at 21:45, Arthur Barstow wrote: > >> * Is supporting OCSP and CRL a MUST for v1? > > Just for clarity, there are two possible requirements around OCSP and > CRLs: > > - support embedding an OCSP response (or a CRL, or a link to a CRL) > in the mark-up of signatures > - support querying OCSP responders (and CRLs) as part of certificate > validation > > I'd argue that the latter is more important than the former. > > -- > Thomas Roessler, W3C <tlr@w3.org> >Received on Wednesday, 4 February 2009 20:54:21 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 18:12:50 UTC