Re: What ASN.1 got right

Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com> Wed, 03 March 2021 03:36 UTC

Return-Path: <nico@cryptonector.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0A1003A1830 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 2 Mar 2021 19:36:05 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.1
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.1 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, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, 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 (1024-bit key) header.d=cryptonector.com
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 dg3iKWSB0fSt for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 2 Mar 2021 19:36:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: from dragonfly.elm.relay.mailchannels.net (dragonfly.elm.relay.mailchannels.net [23.83.212.51]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 408FF3A182A for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 2 Mar 2021 19:36:03 -0800 (PST)
X-Sender-Id: dreamhost|x-authsender|nico@cryptonector.com
Received: from relay.mailchannels.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by relay.mailchannels.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1063C701191; Wed, 3 Mar 2021 03:36:02 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from pdx1-sub0-mail-a14.g.dreamhost.com (100-96-27-126.trex.outbound.svc.cluster.local [100.96.27.126]) (Authenticated sender: dreamhost) by relay.mailchannels.net (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 99C69701C51; Wed, 3 Mar 2021 03:36:01 +0000 (UTC)
X-Sender-Id: dreamhost|x-authsender|nico@cryptonector.com
Received: from pdx1-sub0-mail-a14.g.dreamhost.com (pop.dreamhost.com [64.90.62.162]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384) by 100.96.27.126 (trex/6.0.2); Wed, 03 Mar 2021 03:36:01 +0000
X-MC-Relay: Good
X-MailChannels-SenderId: dreamhost|x-authsender|nico@cryptonector.com
X-MailChannels-Auth-Id: dreamhost
X-Dime-Ski: 5942fb0167ff18ec_1614742561865_3672235457
X-MC-Loop-Signature: 1614742561865:423061899
X-MC-Ingress-Time: 1614742561865
Received: from pdx1-sub0-mail-a14.g.dreamhost.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pdx1-sub0-mail-a14.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5151D7E3D7; Tue, 2 Mar 2021 19:36:01 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=cryptonector.com; h=date :from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-type:in-reply-to; s=cryptonector.com; bh=TbPjd6meZEv47w 4kay/pqJeodUw=; b=aljD2j8blrA32US/ee6wj9sTDrff1GTJPjXmJ75GZS/lyo xtm2DLzGiD7elKyHweJbekORT1u4tUHhMhtvrxtANj/X+IDNhISZwgMpYNDBSgxK j8ZnFAqT8Z/7qmGPhvqZpP/97lno2PJwCXzMWZ/LPSG59OUqUB2EXzrwegOfs=
Received: from localhost (unknown [24.28.108.183]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: nico@cryptonector.com) by pdx1-sub0-mail-a14.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 1AD5D7E3D2; Tue, 2 Mar 2021 19:35:58 -0800 (PST)
Date: Tue, 2 Mar 2021 21:35:56 -0600
X-DH-BACKEND: pdx1-sub0-mail-a14
From: Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com>
To: Michael Thomas <mike@mtcc.com>
Cc: Phillip Hallam-Baker <phill@hallambaker.com>, IETF Discussion Mailing List <ietf@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: What ASN.1 got right
Message-ID: <20210303033555.GG30153@localhost>
References: <CAMm+LwifpPg-Sg9cXLpWvjmExt8KfuYq6oRZd4D1L0ZBR3nRFg@mail.gmail.com> <1631e20d-9d8a-b8c2-9d5e-6c7f4defa72d@mtcc.com> <20210302234928.GX30153@localhost> <cb4960e2-05a1-9d28-f17b-9f610ac378c9@mtcc.com> <20210303002330.GZ30153@localhost> <7d70044c-88e8-0165-5ce3-4c8612965f16@mtcc.com> <20210303005136.GB30153@localhost> <8e4d3b84-0357-524e-b8f5-b8f7290adf2b@mtcc.com> <20210303022234.GE30153@localhost> <b87a101d-dcad-1f75-aeec-a2d19022ce35@mtcc.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <b87a101d-dcad-1f75-aeec-a2d19022ce35@mtcc.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.4 (2018-02-28)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/5gTxUaqvxMjVDP_0vurqLsGKwDI>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 03 Mar 2021 03:36:05 -0000

On Tue, Mar 02, 2021 at 07:00:35PM -0800, Michael Thomas wrote:
> NRE vs constant help desk. [...]

I can't parse "NRE".

> Where are all of these use cases that need offline verification? I asked
> somebody else and didn't get an answer.

Admins *really* like to be able to get into their servers when bad
things happen on their networks and necessary infrastructure is down.
SSH generally gives you that.

> All of this tells me that there is a witching hour with certs that hasn't
> been broken in almost 40 years.

Short-lived certs == no one ever forgets to automate the fetching of new
ones.

When you have two-year certs you need CRLs and OCSP and you always
forget to renew.

When you have five-day certs you cannot forget to renew more than twice
because you won't like the constant outages, so you'll automate.

Heck, you could dial that down to eight-hour certs.  After all, with JWT
we use JWKs that last only a few hours, so you *really* have to fetch
them on a schedule.

Nico
--