Subject: RE: SCVP-01

From: "David P. Kemp" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 1 Sep 1999 09:06:35 -0400 (EDT)

> From: "Peter Williams" <[email-masked]>
> 
> Policy WG, and reuse: I would like to see the SCVP
> specification take component form, enabling its
> object to be reused in the extension mechanisms of other
> suitable value-adding services, including CMP and DCS.

I would like to see that too.  It's in the spirit of the (now-defunct)
Certificate Management Message Format (CMMF):

 * define a set of messages, and define the sequence of messages exchanged
    to perform a particular action.
 * encapsulate/protect the messages using whatever transport/security
    mechanism (CMP, CMS, DCS, AH/ESP, ...) fits the bill.

Defining transport-independent message sets for specific purposes
reduces the difference between "a lot of single-purpose protocols" and
"one big do-everything protocol", enables reuse of existing transport
modules/APIs, and as a design paradigm should be a no-brainer.

Whatever happened to CMMF anyway?  Is this the time to revive it, before
CMP and CMC go to Draft?

---

From: Marc Branchaud <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 01 Sep 1999 17:55:03 -0700

When OCSP was winding into WG last call, I asked at the PKIX meeting (in
Orlando?) to make OCSP's signature mechanism syntactically optional, for
exactly this reason.

I think maybe two other people in the room thought this was a good idea
at that time.

		Marc