On 3/26/13 12:13 PM, "Martin Rex" <mrex@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>Adding 3 more OCSPResponseStatus error codes { no_authoritative_data(7),
>single_requests_only(8), unsupported_extension(8) } with well-defined and
>conflict-free semantics to the existing enum would be perfectly backwards
>compatible.
Of course it is backwards compatible with the standard, but not with the
installed base.
What would happen to the installed base of clients if OCSP responders
would change from current "unauthorized" to one of your new error codes?
/Stefan