[cabf_validation] Random value vs Freshness value

[Tim Hollebeek]

https://github.com/cabforum/documents/compare/master...timfromdigicert:timfr
omdigicert-splitrandomvalue

 

This is the smallest change that can be made.  I think it makes things a lot
clearer, as the motivation for various requirements makes more sense (e.g.
Secret Values must only be sent to the intended recipients, and Freshness
Values must actually be fresh [1]).

 

Duplicate language about Secret Values and Freshness Values could actually
be moved to a common location above the methods, instead appearing in each
method.  Now that we are using two different terms for two different things,
the requirements are actually uniform across the methods, with the exception
of the bug noted above.

 

-Tim

 

[1] There's actually a bug in method 10, where the Freshness Value has no
freshness requirement.  Should we fix that?

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://cabforum.org/pipermail/validation/attachments/20171206/a20a5e64/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 4940 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://cabforum.org/pipermail/validation/attachments/20171206/a20a5e64/attachment.p7s>