1 / 4

DPD/DPV Selection

DPD/DPV Selection. T. Polk, S. Kent. Summary. Compliance ratings Chairs developed a compliance “matrix” Editors submitted their responses Denis submitted analysis of other 3 matrices Strawpoll results 51 votes: SCVP 26; OCSP 15; DVCS 8; CVP 2

stacey
Télécharger la présentation

DPD/DPV Selection

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. DPD/DPV Selection T. Polk, S. Kent

  2. Summary • Compliance ratings • Chairs developed a compliance “matrix” • Editors submitted their responses • Denis submitted analysis of other 3 matrices • Strawpoll results • 51 votes: SCVP 26; OCSP 15; DVCS 8; CVP 2 • Chairs analyzed both strawpoll and matrices to select the winner

  3. Basis of Selection • The protocol must have adequate support among implementers. • The protocol MUST satisfy the requirements specified in RFC 3379 (or be close and readily upgraded). • The protocol must be mature enough for completion soon.

  4. Result • SCVP was the best choice • Had a majority in the strawpoll • Most compliant protocol in Denis’ analysis (SCVP, OCSP and DVCS only) • Several post-3379 drafts, and the WG has implementation experience

More Related