Subject: Re: Huge CRLs

From: "Bob Jueneman" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 14 Sep 1999 17:27:53 -0600

Yes, it is about policy, but I think it is the relying party's policy, and probably 
not the CA's policy.  

The CA's policy might or might not satisfy the RP's requirements, in part because
the RP might literally change his mind based on the value of the transaction
in question.

I THINK I almost completely disagree with your last paragraph, although I'm 
willing to listen and be convinced. But I'm not sure that there IS a trust
model that is negotiated between the CA and the relying party. Although the RP
may decide to trust or not trust the CA, that is his business.  I certainly don't
expect to "negotiate" with VeriSign, Thawte, GTE, Globalsign, etc, etc., 
every time I get a signed e-mail ontaining one of their certificates.  I 
MIGHT be influenced by their CP, but not necessarily.

Bob

>>> "todd@gmtsw" <[email-masked]> 09/14/99 03:35PM >>>
Bob - can I play devil's advocate for a minute?

Isn't the issue of CRL-Use specific to the structure and form of the CPS
<--> CP<--> RPA relationships really? With this in mind, I have to ask the
question "isn't this totally about policy and its operation?"...

What I think is really going on here is that the structure and facility of
CRL use is specific to the operating model and nothing else, unless your
going to implement the control policy in the mechanical form of the protocol
itself (insert laughter here!).

Whether the aged CRL data is too old to be of use to you in your specific
application, is directly defined in the trust model specified in the CPS
<--> RPA agreements and nowhere else. The CP then wraps an operations policy
context around the bigger view to complete the picture.

Todd

----- Original Message -----
From: 
To: ; ; 
Sent: Tuesday, September 14, 1999 12:06 PM
Subject: Re: Huge CRLs