Re: [Cbor] Review of draft-ietf-cose-cbor-encoded-cert-02

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Thu, 16 December 2021 15:25 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
X-Original-To: cbor@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: cbor@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 87F3D3A1008 for <cbor@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 16 Dec 2021 07:25:30 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.099
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.099 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=sandelman.ca
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id R2zkDy_BYwEt for <cbor@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 16 Dec 2021 07:25:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:3:216:3eff:fe7c:d1f3]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 41C923A1001 for <cbor@ietf.org>; Thu, 16 Dec 2021 07:25:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 69A0138F42; Thu, 16 Dec 2021 10:29:37 -0500 (EST)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id rpTTUD5kJxhF; Thu, 16 Dec 2021 10:29:36 -0500 (EST)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2::247]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7FA5B38F41; Thu, 16 Dec 2021 10:29:36 -0500 (EST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=sandelman.ca; s=mail; t=1639668576; bh=JliI+xohxCRoKoHqsxkK3nwebnCaQeXU7d+EuMBVTYI=; h=From:To:cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:From; b=1pHSETJFPzXvDqT1Hl05I++BoyZUc5dFMV+1DzA1bjCtVkbeA5tcDloHBLNrXSSOZ e2+zxINjtWR0SM26FrgBPsX/m8sB2337yg8wY7TjKlgveBXVCEQHQ7WgmIWWintuhZ +3YR8IudTkHW6R8bL7TzM3hnaf8zrbhqnHS2ltTpNcKXO2wWxChkFB4flCUepVTt96 w9WKuH7Zb00pDuDNyc+q5ahkN76RoJ3HELXVfmZbdbB7GkfuFLF5wehsVxuSHnZMTP ViFOX6ppHcHZoTUxOx6x55x/QFs14EGa97TzenNoBWCm192vV80rErufOwD9/Kjtx7 Yllxwy0m6Y4UA==
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id EE5041B9; Thu, 16 Dec 2021 10:25:21 -0500 (EST)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com>
cc: cbor@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <80BF4A6F-9AB7-4F0D-95CB-FAFB2AFE112A@vigilsec.com>
References: <80BF4A6F-9AB7-4F0D-95CB-FAFB2AFE112A@vigilsec.com>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6+git; nmh 1.7+dev; GNU Emacs 26.1
X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m<nPbLgmtKK-5dC@#:k
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg="pgp-sha512"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2021 10:25:21 -0500
Message-ID: <14553.1639668321@localhost>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/cbor/AOaYK3cthRWxo3cX1rtzW6ShS0c>
Subject: Re: [Cbor] Review of draft-ietf-cose-cbor-encoded-cert-02
X-BeenThere: cbor@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Concise Binary Object Representation \(CBOR\)" <cbor.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/cbor>, <mailto:cbor-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/cbor/>
List-Post: <mailto:cbor@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:cbor-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cbor>, <mailto:cbor-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2021 15:25:31 -0000

Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com> wrote:
    > I think that the document should just define C509.  I would like to see

I think you mean, just define C509 Certificates.

    > Sections 4, 5, and 6 moved to other documents.

Which are about CSRs, CRLs and OSCP.
I agree.

    > Section 3 says:

    > The re-encoding does not work for BER encoded certificates.

    > This is not quite correct.  One can always convert a BER-encoded
    > certificate to a DER-encoded certificate.  Then, the DER-encoded
    > certificate can be converted to C509.

I can't imagine a BER encoded certificate.
Could/would BER encoded certificates ever pass a signature?

--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>   . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
           Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide