dss-x — archive

[Andreas Kuehne]

Thank you Andreas for providing the document. Yes, I think contacting the authors of RFC 5055 is a worthwhile undertaking. But, maybe first read on the potential IPR claims related to that document :-) https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/589/ from CoreStreet updates https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/563/ ibid all from 2005 (the usual patent pending yes damocles sword ?) The patents listed are documented at: https://patents.google.com/patent/US5717758A/en https://patents.google.com/patent/US5717757A/en https://patents.google.com/patent/US5666416A/en All to me very broad ... anyway, I am on vacation, so hope this helps. All the best, Stefan. Am 26.07.18 um 12:30 schrieb Andreas Kuehne: Hi colleagues, there is the client request to support the validation of X.509 certificates by DSS-X. Technically this isn't a big deal as the core interface will remain unchanged (treating the certificate as an enveloped signature). The implementor's side should be an easy job, too. As certificate validation is a major part of the signature validation. I drafted a profile (see attached) just by using the existing elements of the core. Comments welcome! This result has a big overlap with the SCVP (Serverside Certificate Validation Protocol, RFC 5055) and I don't like to reinvent existing wheels. But with DSS-X's multi-syntax binding the X.509 profile does offer real added value compared to ASN.1-only SCVP. So I thought about addressing the SCVP authors and ask for their view and hopefully some contribution. Would this make sense? Greetings, Andreas --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that generates this mail. Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at: https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php -- Stefan Hagen read://shagen.de talk: eventually