Subject: [AAA-WG]: Issue 64: e2e draft editorial issues

From: Pat Calhoun <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2001 07:20:10 -0700

I've already sent my comments on this particular issue, but there
were two remaining items that needed to be addressed before it could
be closed.

- 6.5, I think it is better to keep the OCSP-desire 
and the nonce together. 

I do not know what this means? A grouped AVP? btw, the current
draft is incorrect since it shows that the nonce and OSCP-Request
can occur multiple times in the DSAR, and it MUST NOT occur more
than once. The ABNF will be updated to reflect this.

Jari, could you please expand on what you meant?

- 6.8, I think we should just drop the top CA 
since that cert must be known by the initiator 
anyway.

I agree, and the new version will reflect this change.

Thanks,

PatC

---

From: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2001 14:53:47 +0300

> Jari, could you please expand on what you meant?

This relates to the comment in 6.5 of the old draft.

But the same thing exists also in the current draft,
though it has now been provided separately, the OCSP-Nonce
and the OCSP-Request AVPs. The issue is that we
set OCSP-Request=3 and then provide also OCSP-Nonce,
or if we could just set OCSP-Request=2 and the existence
of OCSP-Nonce would indicate the need for fresh responses.
It would seem that the latter approach requires a diameter
implementation to make less checks (did he include OCSP-Nonce
when OCSP-Request was 3? No? Bad peer...).

However, this is very minor issue and I really don't care
much either way.

Jari