Subject: RE: Starting the decision on PIC vs. GetCert

From: "Linn, John" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2001 14:48:12 -0500

I'll second the motion that a change from SCEP to CMP would be a positive
step for GetCert. Per EAP, PIC's choice to layer on EAP was fortunate in
that it provides natively to support multi-step transactions where needed.
As such, it offers another means to incorporate this capability into
GetCert, alternative to the approaches that were discussed on the list at
and shortly after the San Diego meeting. 

--jl

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bernard Aboba [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Monday, February 05, 2001 12:17 PM
> To: Robert Moskowitz; Sara Bitan; IPSRA list
> Cc: Paul Hoffman
> Subject: RE: Starting the decision on PIC vs. GetCert
> 
> 
> >It would be easy for me to change GETCERT to use CMP and CMP 
> Transport over
> >HTTP making it fully compliant with PKIX standards, just not 
> following the
> >Appendix B ir senario.
> 
> Personally, I think this would be a good idea -- especially 
> if EAP support
> could be added as well. This would require protection of the EAP
> conversation.
>