Open csosto-pk opened 1 year ago
Hmm, we did not do that RFC8692 recently either. But all these identifiers could be used in the SigAlgID in OCSP request/responses or staples as well. Probably it makes sense we reference OCSP in the draft.
From Tim H.
I have a slight preference for keeping them separate. When OCSP and CRLs are discussed in the same document, it's often confusing because they're quite different, and it's difficult to keep clear what applies to one or the other, and what applies to both.
We do need to add the sa- classes so that should get us some of the way there because those can be used by OCSP, PKCS#10, CMP, CMC, etc. But, as I mentioned in #12, we'll end up with some references dependencies we might not want.
ACK, I am OK not referencing OCSP in ours.
From https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spasm/mHLRo-X8U7ZAF5BRjPEPA8lHQtk/