Hi,IMO, including an HTTPS URI in the *id-ad-caIssuers* accessMethod is at least a bad practice and very unwise (if done on purpose), as it may give rise to unbounded loops, as it is clearly explained in RFC5280:
CAs SHOULD NOT include URIs that specify https, ldaps, or similar schemes in extensions. CAs that include an https URI in one of these extensions MUST ensure that the server's certificate can be validated without using the information that is pointed to by the URI. Relying parties that choose to validate the server's certificate when obtaining information pointed to by an https URI in the cRLDistributionPoints, authorityInfoAccess, or subjectInfoAccess extensions MUST be prepared for the possibility that this will result in unbounded recursion.
That said, whether it amounts to a violation of the BRs it's a different matter. Generally speaking, since the requirement for the *id-ad-caIssuers* accessMethod is expressed in the same way as for the *id-ad-ocsp* accessMethod and for *distributionPoint* (see 7.1.2.11.2), therefore if using an "https" URI is indeed a violation it should be so for all three cases.
It should also be noted that PKILINT contains a validator for checking that the URI in the *id-ad-caIssuers* accessMethod starts with "http://";.
AdrianoIl 25/04/2024 08:10, Dimitris Zacharopoulos (HARICA) via Servercert-wg ha scritto:
NOTICE: Pay attention - external email - Sender is 0100018f13e0c532-cd7a8efa-701a-498e-9678-2ba113a48abf-000...@amazonses.comDear Members, I have a quick question regarding the |id-ad-caIssuers| accessMethod URI.Section 4.2.2.1 of RFC 5280 <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc5280.html#section-4.2.2.1> states that:When the|id-ad-caIssuers|accessMethod is used, at least one instance SHOULD specify an accessLocation that is an HTTP [RFC2616] or LDAP [RFC4516] URI.RFC 2616 does not support https. That was introduced in a superseded version.Since RFC 5280 points to RFC 2616, based on past discussions about strictly adhering to RFC 5280 despite the existence of superseded versions, I believe that the proper interpretation of this requirement is that the "http" scheme is allowed and "https" is not.Do Members agree with that interpretation?If this is the correct interpretation, would it be considered a violation of the BRs if a CA or end-entity certificate contains https:// URL in the id-ad-caIssuers accessMethod ?I'm afraid that this might not be as clear in the BRs as it should be, so if people agree with the above, we should probably update section 7.1.2.7.7 <https://github.com/cabforum/servercert/blob/main/docs/BR.md#71277-subscriber-certificate-authority-information-access> (and possibly other parts) to explicitly state that the allowed scheme is "http" and not "https", just like we do for the CRLDP in section 7.1.2.11.2 <https://github.com/cabforum/servercert/blob/main/docs/BR.md#712112-crl-distribution-points> .Thank you, Dimitris. _______________________________________________ Servercert-wg mailing list [email protected] https://lists.cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/servercert-wg
smime.p7s
Description: Firma crittografica S/MIME
_______________________________________________ Servercert-wg mailing list [email protected] https://lists.cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/servercert-wg
