Re: revocation of roots

2008-10-24 Thread Ian G
Julien R Pierre - Sun Microsystems wrote: Eddy, Eddy Nigg wrote: On 10/23/2008 12:34 AM, Julien R Pierre - Sun Microsystems: ... However reality shows that it takes quite some time until a new version of NSS seeps to the application level, including with Mozilla's own products (which would

Re: revocation of roots

2008-10-24 Thread Ian G
Kyle Hamilton wrote: RFC3280 has been obsoleted by RFC5280. Aside from that, though... ...did the people who created PKIX just not realize that if a non-root certificate needs the ability to be revoked, a root certificate would also? Hi Kyle, Of course it was realised, but what they did

Re: revocation of roots

2008-10-24 Thread Paul Hoffman
At 3:25 PM +0200 10/24/08, Ian G wrote: Robert Relyea wrote: The problem with this idea is that mozilla probably does not want to be in the CA business. The overhead of creating a mozilla root key in a safe and secure manner is quite involved (and more than doing a key gen on a smart card).

Re: revocation of roots

2008-10-24 Thread Robert Relyea
Paul Hoffman wrote: At 3:25 PM +0200 10/24/08, Ian G wrote: Robert Relyea wrote: The problem with this idea is that mozilla probably does not want to be in the CA business. The overhead of creating a mozilla root key in a safe and secure manner is quite involved (and more than doing a

Re: Dealing with third-party subordinates of T-Systems and others

2008-10-24 Thread Frank Hecker
Eddy Nigg wrote: I'd like to pick this discussion up once again and evaluate what the goals of Mozilla and the Mozilla CA policy really are. Certainly the above is not the defined goal, but rather provide some reasonable assurance about the CAs included in NSS and Mozilla products and allow

Re: revocation of roots

2008-10-24 Thread Frank Hecker
Ian G wrote: OK, could we speculate that Mozo apps also could turn out a security update for their products in ... say 2 business days? Or, what number? And then, we could suggest that the whole process is likely to take a week (5 business days)? The Firefox team has done security updates

Re: revocation of roots

2008-10-24 Thread Frank Hecker
Frank Hecker wrote: So personally I'd consider a 5-day timeframe reasonable, and based on past conversations with people doing update releases, I think it might be pushed down as low as 3 days. I should clarify that this timeframe doesn't include any CA-related time prior to the Mozilla

Re: revocation of roots

2008-10-24 Thread Eddy Nigg
On 10/24/2008 05:07 PM, Paul Hoffman: Robert: you are already in that business by distributing trust anchors that you have (sometimes) vetted. You are a CA without signing anything, just by distributing a trust anchor repository. Kind ofMozilla doesn't certify really anything, but

Re: revocation of roots

2008-10-24 Thread Paul Hoffman
At 9:42 AM -0700 10/24/08, Robert Relyea wrote: Paul Hoffman wrote: Robert: you are already in that business by distributing trust anchors that you have (sometimes) vetted. You are a CA without signing anything, just by distributing a trust anchor repository. Yes, but by doing so we aren't in

Re: Dealing with third-party subordinates of T-Systems and others

2008-10-24 Thread Eddy Nigg
On 10/24/2008 05:34 PM, Frank Hecker: Eddy Nigg wrote: I'd like to pick this discussion up once again and evaluate what the goals of Mozilla and the Mozilla CA policy really are. Certainly the above is not the defined goal, but rather provide some reasonable assurance about the CAs included in