IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [pkix] Straw-poll on OCSP responses for non-revoked certificates.

Erwann Abalea <eabalea@gmail.com> Tue, 30 October 2012 12:35 UTC

Return-Path: <eabalea@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: pkix@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: pkix@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B581521F8582 for <pkix@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 30 Oct 2012 05:35:19 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id HAcO1AESUhPN for <pkix@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 30 Oct 2012 05:35:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-la0-f44.google.com (mail-la0-f44.google.com [209.85.215.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C337F21F8554 for <pkix@ietf.org>; Tue, 30 Oct 2012 05:35:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-la0-f44.google.com with SMTP id b11so186115lam.31 for <pkix@ietf.org>; Tue, 30 Oct 2012 05:35:11 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=2gqGemZt75CewY4vap00kt/fgwoAvah5suyC+GlOyf8=; b=BkAlJJmowLkUFF01nLxdhv8godogBy66YwTnSoxBIJJ73wDUOiseATVd/M9JLr+chf fVqpRjtKX4skU2sRzarTVJEGT9TVtAlYVoysvnCd8M4zOdU3IvRVSMHUp645K+8uLqD5 Ch4aDS9aQ8OB0hG2zZJoY9jBJOuXfk77uRfQ8YS2X2t/cJGtTSl+y3cJW+XbPPQLsLCq PqJxmFiHezMOH3+OrqMSt7C1z397G3QXuYbx/h5h8kFWuCs9ltbjMCDai4m7q/xKK25E HxG+jmtupsOA2qsl3TQbQFhM/d4u7HgOGbTr02XFAWkfqvXlTM6deb7AeIqRTnUvEyW0 ShQw==
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.152.148.226 with SMTP id tv2mr30132391lab.34.1351600511155; Tue, 30 Oct 2012 05:35:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.114.25.74 with HTTP; Tue, 30 Oct 2012 05:35:11 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CCB55CA3.52588%stefan@aaa-sec.com>
References: <20121029232328.BF5D91A309@ld9781.wdf.sap.corp> <CCB55CA3.52588%stefan@aaa-sec.com>
Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2012 13:35:11 +0100
Message-ID: <CA+i=0E4jwStz2jdW=J1ynWvTcooB1DiGJ61XYuSJNAGXTPocgQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Erwann Abalea <eabalea@gmail.com>
To: Stefan Santesson <stefan@aaa-sec.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Cc: pkix@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [pkix] Straw-poll on OCSP responses for non-revoked certificates.
X-BeenThere: pkix@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: PKIX Working Group <pkix.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/pkix>, <mailto:pkix-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/pkix>
List-Post: <mailto:pkix@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:pkix-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pkix>, <mailto:pkix-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2012 12:35:19 -0000

Bonjour,

Option #3, reply with an unsigned response (unauthorized), RP SHOULD
have a hard-fail behavior.

2012/10/30 Stefan Santesson <stefan@aaa-sec.com>:
[...]
> Please reply with either:
>
> 1. Allow "revoked" response for a certificate that has not been "revoked"
> but where that OCSP responder for any other reason knows the certificate
> to be "bad".
>
> 2. Require that the OCSP responder MUST respond "good" in this situation.
>
> 3. Neither 1 or 2 (motivate).

-- 
Erwann.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email