- From: Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@baltimore.ie>
- Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2002 13:06:55 +0000
- To: www-xkms@w3.org
- CC: "Deacon, Alex" <alex@verisign.com>, "'Blair Dillaway'" <blaird@microsoft.com>, Yassir Elley <yassir.elley@sun.com>
This reminds me of something I meant to clear up before but didn't. > 2) The size of a signed XKMS message is to large, leading to bandwidth > issues. For example, a typical signed XKMS Validate response can run about > 2.5K. On some networks this would cost the user between 7 and 10 cents! > (Data from a major European operator) This seems to have been the major > issue with the vendors and caused them to stick to their smaller proprietary > structures and to consider ASN.1 based protocols such as OCSP for validation > instead of going with XKMS. Wasn't it also the mandatory additional roundtrip compared to (say) a pre-cooked OCSP response that was unpopular? If so (and I haven't checked back), would we want to accept a requirement on us to allow support for pre-cooked validate responses? What I mean by pre-cooked is shown in the following scheme, where Bob sends Alice a pre-cooked xkms-response: 1. Alice asks Bob to send her a signed foo 2. Bob asks xkms responder to validate his signing key 3. Bob sends signed-foo+xkms-response to Alice 4. Alice checks signature and xkms-response What Alice gets from this is to know that according to the responder Bob's key was ok recently. A variant of this would be where Alice provides (at 1) a nonce that's to be present in the xkms-response at 4. That gives Alice some freshness. Anyway, my questions to you all are:- - do we want to allow this type of thing? (now,later,never) - is it allowed/prevented by the current requirements document? - if not, what language to add to allow/prevent it? Stephen. > > Ericcson published a technical paper on the concept of certificate > validation in a WAP environment. They compared CRL's, OCSP and XKMS. I > didn't agree with most of their assumptions, however it was interesting none > the less. If people are interested I'll ask the authors if I can post the > paper to this list. > > Regards, > Alex -- ____________________________________________________________ Stephen Farrell Baltimore Technologies, tel: (direct line) +353 1 881 6716 39 Parkgate Street, fax: +353 1 881 7000 Dublin 8. mailto:stephen.farrell@baltimore.ie Ireland http://www.baltimore.com
Received on Tuesday, 26 February 2002 08:07:05 UTC