Re: Current status of CRL validation ?
Stephen Kent <kent@bbn.com> Tue, 23 March 2004 18:03 UTC
Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA15511 for <pkix-archive@lists.ietf.org>; Tue, 23 Mar 2004 13:03:55 -0500 (EST)
Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.8) with ESMTP id i2NGuit0090665; Tue, 23 Mar 2004 08:56:44 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-pkix@mail.imc.org)
Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id i2NGui3B090664; Tue, 23 Mar 2004 08:56:44 -0800 (PST)
X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-pkix@mail.imc.org using -f
Received: from aragorn.bbn.com (aragorn.bbn.com [128.33.0.62]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.8) with ESMTP id i2NGuhiH090656 for <ietf-pkix@imc.org>; Tue, 23 Mar 2004 08:56:43 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from kent@bbn.com)
Received: from [128.33.244.157] (col-dhcp33-244-157.bbn.com [128.33.244.157]) by aragorn.bbn.com (8.12.7/8.12.7) with ESMTP id i2NGuebc017556; Tue, 23 Mar 2004 11:56:40 -0500 (EST)
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Sender: kent@po2.bbn.com
Message-Id: <p06020406bc861b0a4627@[128.33.244.157]>
In-Reply-To: <20040323142525.GA27672@cryptolog.com>
References: <20040323103412.GA23286@cryptolog.com> <004f01c410dc$2c0681d0$df294d0c@hq.orionsec.com> <20040323142525.GA27672@cryptolog.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2004 11:56:01 -0500
To: Julien Stern <julien.stern@cryptolog.com>
From: Stephen Kent <kent@bbn.com>
Subject: Re: Current status of CRL validation ?
Cc: ietf-pkix@imc.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.28 (www . roaringpenguin . com / mimedefang)
Sender: owner-ietf-pkix@mail.imc.org
Precedence: bulk
List-Archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-pkix/mail-archive/>
List-ID: <ietf-pkix.imc.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-pkix-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe>
Julien, The confusion stems from somewhat sloppy use of terminology in these discussions. Only the issuer of a cert can revoke it and in X.509 (unlike PGP) there is only one issuer for a given cert. So, the revocation question as you stated it was not well formed. A cert is either revoked or not. However, the ability of an RP to establish the validity of a cert is a function of the cert path that the RP uses to validate the cert, and of the access to revocation status info available to the RP. Since there may be more than one path used to validate the same cert, it is possible to get to different answers re the question of whether the cert is valid, depending on which path you use. Also, two RPs may have access to different revocation status data for the EE cert or for a CA cert along a oath, so that each RP may arrive at different view of the validity of the EE cert. Steve
- Current status of CRL validation ? Julien Stern
- RE: Current status of CRL validation ? Santosh Chokhani
- Re: Current status of CRL validation ? Julien Stern
- RE: Current status of CRL validation ? Santosh Chokhani
- Re: Current status of CRL validation ? Julien Stern
- RE: Current status of CRL validation ? Santosh Chokhani
- RE: Current status of CRL validation ? Ambarish Malpani
- RE: Current status of CRL validation ? Ambarish Malpani
- Re: Current status of CRL validation ? Stephen Kent
- Re: Current status of CRL validation ? Ed Gerck
- Re: Current status of CRL validation ? Santosh Chokhani
- Re: Current status of CRL validation ? Ed Gerck
- Re: Current status of CRL validation ? Stephen Kent
- Re: Current status of CRL validation ? Ed Gerck
- Re: Current status of CRL validation ? Stephen Kent
- Re: Current status of CRL validation ? Ed Gerck
- Re: Current status of CRL validation ? Stephen Kent
- Re: Current status of CRL validation ? Ed Gerck
- Re: Current status of CRL validation ? Stephen Kent
- clarification proposal -- Re: Current status of C… Ed Gerck
- Re: clarification proposal -- Re: Current status … Paul Hoffman / IMC
- Re: clarification proposal -- Re: Current status … Ed Gerck
- Re: clarification proposal -- Re: Current status … Stephen Kent
- RE: clarification proposal -- Re: Current status … Santosh Chokhani
- RE: clarification proposal -- Re: Current status … Stephen Kent
- RE: clarification proposal -- Re: Current status … Santosh Chokhani
- RE: clarification proposal -- Re: Current status … Stephen Kent
- RE: clarification proposal -- Re: Current status … Santosh Chokhani
- RE: clarification proposal -- Re: Current status … Stephen Kent
- Re: clarification proposal -- Re: Current status … Ed Gerck
- Re: clarification proposal -- Re: Current status … Ed Gerck
- Re: clarification proposal -- Re: Current status … Stephen Kent
- Re: clarification proposal -- Re: Current status … Ed Gerck
- Re: clarification proposal -- Re: Current status … Santosh Chokhani
- Re: clarification proposal -- Re: Current status … Ed Gerck
- RE: clarification proposal -- Re: Current status … Santosh Chokhani
- Re: clarification proposal -- Re: Current status … Ed Gerck
- RE: clarification proposal -- Re: Current status … Santosh Chokhani
- Re: clarification proposal -- Re: Current status … Ed Gerck
- Re: clarification proposal -- Re: Current status … Stephen Kent
- restated -- Re: clarification proposal -- Re: Cur… Ed Gerck
- Re: clarification proposal -- Re: Current status … David P. Kemp
- Re: clarification proposal -- Re: Current status … Ed Gerck
- Re: Current status of CRL validation ? Ed Gerck
- Re: Current status of CRL validation ? Eric Norman
- Re: Current status of CRL validation ? Ed Gerck
- Re: Current status of CRL validation ? Julien Stern
- RE: Current status of CRL validation ? Santosh Chokhani
- Re: Current status of CRL validation ? Julien Stern
- RE: Current status of CRL validation ? Santosh Chokhani
- Re: Current status of CRL validation ? Julien Stern
- Re: Current status of CRL validation ? Stephen Kent
- Re: Current status of CRL validation ? Stephen Kent