[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [caops-wg] OCSP section 2
- To: Olle Mulmo <mulmo@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [caops-wg] OCSP section 2
- From: Jesus Luna <jluna@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 03 Jun 2005 16:38:21 +0200
- Cc: caops-wg@xxxxxxx
- Delivered-to: grdfm-caops-wg-outgoing@mailbouncer.mcs.anl.gov
- Delivered-to: grdfm-caops-wg@mailbouncer.mcs.anl.gov
- In-reply-to: <127d00c51f9b5bdf1b79b2fe2f2f5ed1@pdc.kth.se>
- References: <127d00c51f9b5bdf1b79b2fe2f2f5ed1@pdc.kth.se>
- Sender: owner-caops-wg@xxxxxxx
- User-agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0 (Windows/20041206)
* In section 2 (former section 3) the following text was removed:
"Grid’s Virtual Organizations may contain more than one CA, so
establishment of OCSP Authorized Responders between them is essential
to provide an interoperable service." When we proposed such change we
were thinking in the importance of highlighting the co-existence of
multiples CAs into the same VO as a practical challenge for Grid
OCSP. What do you think?
I don't understand what this text is aiming at. Is it only to
establish the fact that we operate in an environment with multiple
trust anchors and that these need to be federated through e.g. a PMA,
or is there something else between the lines?
"Authorized responders between them"... are you thinking of some
cross-certification / bridge scenario?
/Olle
Sorry for the late response but in fact we had a confusion with the
concept of "Authorized Responders", so about this point we agree with Olle.
Regards.
--
____________________
Jesus Luna Garcia
PhD Student. Polytechnic University of Catalonia
Barcelona, Spain
jluna@ac.upc.edu