IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Iotops] [Uta] How should we change draft-ietf-use-san?

Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com> Thu, 22 April 2021 17:03 UTC

Return-Path: <lear@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: iotops@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: iotops@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 888603A0AD3; Thu, 22 Apr 2021 10:03:33 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -9.598
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_MED=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.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 GkVhJzyvy7WC; Thu, 22 Apr 2021 10:03:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from aer-iport-3.cisco.com (aer-iport-3.cisco.com [173.38.203.53]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5955B3A0ACB; Thu, 22 Apr 2021 10:03:28 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=5624; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1619111008; x=1620320608; h=from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date:in-reply-to:cc: to:references; bh=LC01cWHXAe6P6xlWGKUuFKA0EjRV/bEx335sBW9VR74=; b=Z3uq/b1l3ygvPJo6vk7mwFhAyfy4XQONFZhzs0puLqxE/Aft5ohSugWh 19D4+NhZM9sTLGAoQF9WhWPFPmLiLCZXp9E252n2ljiMUR6EpSq9AbY4U cy9sR/4QSH+rKdfsqcpc5uthhZ5mrwg3SAcwAM3aqbSfA18EChspidh01 U=;
X-Files: signature.asc : 488
X-IPAS-Result: A0AFAAA0q4Fg/xbLJq1aGQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBARIBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQGBfwMBAQEBAQsBg3cBJxIxhEOJBIhqA5RLhiSBfAQHAQEBCgMBATQEAQGEUAKBeSY1CA4CAwEBAQMCAwEBAQEBBQEBAQIBBgRxE4VdhkQBAQEDASNWBQsLBBQnAwICRhEGE4JxAYJmIag1eoEygQGEWIRmEIE6AYFShS8BhlRDgguBEycMEIJfPodZNoIrBIFVawUBaIFYf1icVIEpnQ+DGINBgUaYEgQhg1CQbZBQlzedMoQFAgQGBQIWgVYBN4FZMxoIGxVlAYI+PhIZDpxuPwMvOAIGAQkBAQMJjQ8BAQ
IronPort-HdrOrdr: A9a23:kum4vK/SFf7Lo0u15dluk+BaI+orLtY04lQ7vn1ZYxY9SL36q+ mFmvMH2RjozAsAQX1Io7y9EYSJXH+0z/9IyKYLO7PKZmPbkUuuaLpv9I7zhwDnchefysd42b 17e6ZzTP38ZGIWse/f4A21V+kt28OG9qfAv4jj5kxgRw1rdK1shj0RYm2mO3Z7SwVcCZ0yGI D03LsjmxObZX8VYs6nb0NqY8H/obTw5fDbSC9DIxYm7QWU5AnYjILSIly/wgoUVS9JzPME92 XI+jaJgJmLgrWc1gLW0XPV4tBtvObZjvFHBMCKl6EuW1LRtjo=
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.82,243,1613433600"; d="asc'?scan'208,217";a="32882677"
Received: from aer-iport-nat.cisco.com (HELO aer-core-1.cisco.com) ([173.38.203.22]) by aer-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA; 22 Apr 2021 17:03:26 +0000
Received: from [10.61.144.111] ([10.61.144.111]) by aer-core-1.cisco.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id 13MH3PH9026215 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 22 Apr 2021 17:03:25 GMT
From: Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com>
Message-Id: <184E8EE9-BD98-4887-BC01-E74FB6943600@cisco.com>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_ED670E55-B13D-4CE1-A8CD-E5595FDAB1E6"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="pgp-sha256"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 14.0 \(3654.60.0.2.21\))
Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2021 19:03:24 +0200
In-Reply-To: <CAFewVt7=Lh7sunDEcYJESZHOLsYSyOycmwWmAeYBYDED8sCavg@mail.gmail.com>
Cc: "Salz, Rich" <rsalz@akamai.com>, Jim Fenton <fenton@bluepopcorn.net>, "uta@ietf.org" <uta@ietf.org>, iotops@ietf.org
To: Brian Smith <brian@briansmith.org>
References: <F538FFD7-D172-4AEE-82DD-CF6F93936C3B@akamai.com> <D341C730-EBA1-4BF5-B200-0BE1A4B8A1D0@cisco.com> <413CBCFE-1FDF-458E-9F0E-E3D58F86E5D9@bluepopcorn.net> <A5B94C6E-419D-454E-92E8-FEEB5F8EDE17@cisco.com> <8A41ED29-2448-4633-AC45-33DE98A6BC81@akamai.com> <7B51BB81-1C9D-4B2F-AF83-1E528E620AE7@cisco.com> <CAFewVt4Pm6-T3XC65uEceuzpXjNubEYLWY9h1cmHdNBPcpOVXQ@mail.gmail.com> <42739D1C-004F-4DAD-8023-8E9731B46E05@cisco.com> <CAFewVt57M=o=2FOsCi4s_wZ-KQbZFZQiBCQZAEgtZB4HtFvtnw@mail.gmail.com> <CA66BC31-B56B-4E4C-A3D6-F5C36FD54B38@cisco.com> <CAFewVt4XcBd0MWmtcM4kZzqQ3EQVM=t8-eqqpDMtfgNmV92u1Q@mail.gmail.com> <4233FD89-F22D-4D09-8280-8D43453E6BD7@cisco.com> <CAFewVt4eB5de2eJKupBCk_DbtSaAUGGoRETSXZrDWVxfTFcWBQ@mail.gmail.com> <B9193ABC-3E17-4110-B1B4-207383CCCD8F@cisco.com> <CAFewVt7=Lh7sunDEcYJESZHOLsYSyOycmwWmAeYBYDED8sCavg@mail.gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3654.60.0.2.21)
X-Outbound-SMTP-Client: 10.61.144.111, [10.61.144.111]
X-Outbound-Node: aer-core-1.cisco.com
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/iotops/dst5KxfiFkCEThEmeKOdmF0-k0E>
Subject: Re: [Iotops] [Uta] How should we change draft-ietf-use-san?
X-BeenThere: iotops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IOT Operations <iotops.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/iotops>, <mailto:iotops-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/iotops/>
List-Post: <mailto:iotops@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:iotops-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/iotops>, <mailto:iotops-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2021 17:03:34 -0000

Thanks, Brian.  I appreciate your patience.  The below totally works for me.


Eliot

> On 22 Apr 2021, at 18:58, Brian Smith <brian@briansmith.org> wrote:
> 
> Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com <mailto:lear@cisco.com>> wrote:
> Actually, according to 802.1AR-2009, the subject MUST contain requires a DN with serial number, and it may contain a SAN (e.g., don’t count on it).  That’s the major concern.  To me, the rest is really negotiable.
> 
> OK, great. I don't think what Rich or what I'm proposing is in conflict with that at all.
> 
> The idea here is to tell certificate verifiers (relying parties):
> * If you're looking for a DNS name in a certificate, only look in the subjectAltName, Don't look in the Subject Common Name.
> * If you're looking for an IP address in a certificate, only look in the subjectAltName,  Don't look in the Subject Common Name.
> 
> That's it.
> 
> In the case of  802.1AR-2009, the verifier is to look for a distinguished name (either the Subject or a directoryName subjectAltName), not a DNS name or an IP address, so the proposed guidance wouldn't apply.
> 
> Note that RFC 6125 punted in IP addresses because they weren't commonly used in certificates in the working groups' judgement at the time, but now I think it is clear that an update to RFC 6125 should address IP addresses too.
> 
> Cheers,
> Brian

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email