At 9:09 AM +1000 6/12/10, Geoff Huston wrote:
O...

The requirement was introduced into the res-cert draft in response to a review comment from David Cooper:

3) Section 3.9.5 states:

    In this profile, the scope of the CRL is specified to be all
    certificates issued by this CA issuer using a given key pair.

 The scope of a CRL MUST be all certificates issued by the issuing CA
 unless the CRL includes an issuingDistributionPoint extension.  So, if
 the scope of CRLs is to be limited to certificates signed with a given
 key pair, then the profile must either require inclusion of the
 issuingDistributionPoint extension in CRLs or forbid CAs from performing
 key rollover. The latter option may be implemented by having issuers
 change names whenever changing the key pair used to sign certificates.

http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/sidr/current/msg00476.html (and the ensuing brief thread).

Geoff

Geoff,

Thanks for the explanation. David suggested two solutions to the problem, and you chose to mandate changing the CA name rather than adding the IDP extension into the CRL.

The ensuring brief thread, that I just (quickly) reviewed, entailed message exchanges between only you and David, and involved clarifying discussion about how one could use the iDP extension to qualify the scope of a CRL when rekeying. (It also included a confusing excursion into revocation reason codes, and a discussion of appropriate key lengths to match hash algs. That latter discussion may have been unduly biased by some NIST guidance that focuses on long term sigs vs. certs, but ...)

I'd just like to make sure that, that the WG still agrees that this is the preferred solution. If so, we can accommodate that in the key/alg rollover document, and note the rationale. I do think the rationale also should appear in the repository structure document as well, maybe the resource cert profile too. It would take only a short paragraph to do so.

Steve
_______________________________________________
sidr mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr

Reply via email to