Re: Proposed Up/Down protocol description

[Robert Loomans <robertl@apnic.net>]

>>     <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
> 
> Is there a real reason why we're using UTF instead of something simpler?
> While browsing through the messages, I could find no attributes that
> really needed UTF (unless a sender/recipient will be spelled with Kanji
> or something).

a) It's the default encoding for XML.
b) It is a common convention in XML to use UTF-8 unless you have very
good reason not to.


>> This command directs the IR to immediately mark all issued valid 
>> certificates issued by this IR within the named Resource Class with
>> this ISP's SKI value to be marked as revoked, causing the issued 
>> certificates to be withdrawn from the publication respository and
>> to be listed in the IR's subsequent CRLs within this Resource
>> Class.
> 
> I'd rather reverse this and say: "... causing the issued certificates to
> be listed in the IR's subsequent CRLs and potentially to be withdrawn
> from the publication repository.". This is again because the CRL is THE
> authoritative source of revocation, not the non-existence in a repository.

I think that the assumption was that you wouldn't issue the CRL right
away.... It would wait until the next scheduled cycle.

On the other hand, I agree that there doesn't appear to be much point in
removing the certs from the repository if the CRL is not updated.

Rob

-- 
Robert Loomans                                 Email:  robertl@apnic.net
Programmer/Analyst, APNIC                      Phone:    +61 7 3858 3100
http://www.apnic.net                             Fax:    +61 7 3858 3199

Attachment: smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature