SCVP 18 Tim Polk

Mea Culpa ● Draft -19 omits some promised changes from the March IETF meeting – Document management problems compounded by ID submission deadline ● Draft -20 is ready and available from NIST web site

Summary of Changes Since -18 ● Revised key usages syntax ● Revised requestorRef syntax from general name to OCTET STRING ● Defined ordering for additional certificates required to support CRL validation when included in a replyWantBack

Status With Respect to 3379 ● 3379 requires ability to return SCVP responses along with other proofs, but current format omits this possibility – Editors will revise to meet 3379 requirements ● 3379 states that the protocol should support thin clients, but client conformance requirements are unclear – E.g., is a client that can only request status for one certificate at a time, and does not support optional fields in the request conformant? – Conformance requirements should be established/clarified to include relatively thin clients

Open Issues ● A number of additional issues have been raised, but WG consensus has not been demonstrated – Syntax ● Explicit tagging, BIT STRING vs. Booleans, DER vs. BER, etc. – Conformance requirements for thin clients

Proposed Way forward ● Draft -20 officially submitted ASAP ● Hall meetings to resolve open issues if possible ● Draft -21 to satisfy RFC 3379 requirements (and any issues that we can resolve) ● Joint submission of perceived open issues to WG Chair (Steve Kent) and request determination of WG consensus ● Draft -22 (if necessary) is forwarded to IESG