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