Re: [pkix] Amendment to CABF Baseline Requirements
Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com> Thu, 06 April 2017 19:24 UTC
Return-Path: <housley@vigilsec.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 0E70D127871 for <pkix@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 6 Apr 2017 12:24:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 UN2VOJfoT3Ca for <pkix@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 6 Apr 2017 12:24:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.smeinc.net (mail.smeinc.net [209.135.209.11]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5780B129479 for <pkix@ietf.org>; Thu, 6 Apr 2017 12:24:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.smeinc.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id B8231300445 for <pkix@ietf.org>; Thu, 6 Apr 2017 15:24:36 -0400 (EDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at mail.smeinc.net
Received: from mail.smeinc.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mail.smeinc.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10026) with ESMTP id bTW5lg8CIX8t for <pkix@ietf.org>; Thu, 6 Apr 2017 15:24:34 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from new-host-4.home (pool-108-45-101-150.washdc.fios.verizon.net [108.45.101.150]) by mail.smeinc.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C373F300229; Thu, 6 Apr 2017 15:24:34 -0400 (EDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.3 \(3273\))
From: Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com>
In-Reply-To: <27e9bc684735472bbd6d7f82b5e2823b@EX2.corp.digicert.com>
Date: Thu, 06 Apr 2017 15:24:34 -0400
Cc: IETF PKIX <pkix@ietf.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <662C0D5C-EF34-4BD1-B3BC-B7B9A84B4990@vigilsec.com>
References: <906f1c1dde4f44789646197d887da312@EX2.corp.digicert.com> <a24a24b9-542c-a619-3445-47e812f9c46b@nthpermutation.com> <27e9bc684735472bbd6d7f82b5e2823b@EX2.corp.digicert.com>
To: Ben Wilson <ben.wilson@digicert.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3273)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pkix/DjGwXDNAfgbDixhCuRpvsxrMeJQ>
Subject: Re: [pkix] Amendment to CABF Baseline Requirements
X-BeenThere: pkix@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Thu, 06 Apr 2017 19:24:40 -0000
The comment in the UpperBounds ASN.1 module (the 8th edition) says: -- EXPORTS All -- The types and values defined in this module are exported for use in the other ASN.1 -- modules contained within these Directory Specifications, and for the use of other -- applications which will use them to access Directory services. Other applications -- may use them for their own purposes, but this will not constrain extensions and -- modifications needed to maintain or improve the Directory service. X.509 is part of the Directory Specifications, so they are not advisory. It looks like ITU-T increased the length of the organizational unit name in the most recent edition. RFC 5280 says: ub-organization-name-length INTEGER ::= 64 ub-organizational-unit-name-length INTEGER ::= 32 The UpperBounds ASN.1 module (the 8th edition) says: ub-organization-name INTEGER ::= 64 ub-organizational-unit-name INTEGER ::= 64 So, we may already be in a place where implementations conforming to X.509 will produce a certificate that cannot be decoded by an implementation that conforms to RFC 5280. I wish we gad gotten a heads-up … Russ > On Apr 6, 2017, at 2:55 PM, Ben Wilson <ben.wilson@digicert.com> wrote: > > Thanks, Michael. Is it relevant that Annex C to X.520 (2012) states, > "(This annex does not form an integral part of this Recommendation | > International Standard.)" whereas before (1988) it stated, "This Annex is > part of the Recommendation."? > > From: pkix [mailto:pkix-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Michael StJohns > Sent: Thursday, April 6, 2017 10:55 AM > To: pkix@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [pkix] Amendment to CABF Baseline Requirements > > Hi Ben - > > IETF 5280 et al are profiles of the X.509 documents. The upper length > bounds for orgnaizationName and commonName fields in 5280 is no different > than the upper bounds specified in X.509 (at least as of the 2014 > document). I would suggest that you will pretty much break any and all > implementations of X.509 clients that rely or enforce this limit as well as > any code that generates certificate requests. > > I will note that overloading text fields with structured data is generally > not a good idea - as you've found. > > Mike > > > > On 4/6/2017 12:24 PM, Ben Wilson wrote: > Does anyone want to comment on my draft amendment to the CA/Browser Forums > Baseline Requirements for SSL/TLS Certificates which would remove the > 64-character limit on the commonName and organizationName, as an exception > to RFC 5280? The text of the relevant Baseline Requirement provision is > found below with the proposed additional language in ALL CAPS. The reason > for the first change (commonName) is there are FQDNs (in Subject Alternative > Names) that are longer than 64 characters. The reason for the second change > (organizationName) is that there are organizations with names longer than 64 > characters. > > 7.1.4.2.2. Subject Distinguished Name Fields > a. Certificate Field: subject:commonName (OID 2.5.4.3) > Required/Optional: Deprecated (Discouraged, but not prohibited) > Contents: If present, this field MUST contain a single IP address or > Fully-Qualified Domain Name that is one of the values contained in the > Certificates subjectAltName extension (see Section 7.1.4.2.1). > MAXIMUM LENGTH: NO STIPULATION. (THIS IS AN EXCEPTION TO RFC 5280 WHICH > SPECIFIES AN UPPER BOUND OF 64 CHARACTERS.) > b. Certificate Field: subject:organizationName (OID 2.5.4.10) > Optional. > Contents: If present, the subject:organizationName field MUST contain either > the Subjects name or DBA as verified under Section 3.2.2.2. The CA may > include information in this field that differs slightly from the verified > name, such as common variations or abbreviations, provided that the CA > documents the difference and any abbreviations used are locally accepted > abbreviations; e.g., if the official record shows Company Name > Incorporated, the CA MAY use Company Name Inc. or Company Name. > Because Subject name attributes for individuals (e.g. givenName (2.5.4.42) > and surname (2.5.4.4)) are not broadly supported by application software, > the CA MAY use the subject:organizationName field to convey a natural person > Subjects name or DBA. > MAXIMUM LENGTH: 256 CHARACTERS (THIS IS AN EXCEPTION TO RFC 5280 WHICH > SPECIFIES AN UPPER BOUND OF 64 CHARACTERS.) > > Thanks, > Ben Wilson > > > > _______________________________________________ > pkix mailing list > mailto:pkix@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pkix > > _______________________________________________ > pkix mailing list > pkix@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pkix
- Re: [pkix] Amendment to CABF Baseline Requirements Russ Housley
- Re: [pkix] Amendment to CABF Baseline Requirements Russ Housley
- Re: [pkix] Amendment to CABF Baseline Requirements Russ Housley
- Re: [pkix] Amendment to CABF Baseline Requirements Erik Andersen
- Re: [pkix] Amendment to CABF Baseline Requirements Erik Andersen
- Re: [pkix] Amendment to CABF Baseline Requirements Carl Wallace
- Re: [pkix] Amendment to CABF Baseline Requirements Jeremy Rowley
- Re: [pkix] Amendment to CABF Baseline Requirements Jim Schaad
- Re: [pkix] Amendment to CABF Baseline Requirements Sill, Alan
- Re: [pkix] Amendment to CABF Baseline Requirements Carl Wallace
- Re: [pkix] Amendment to CABF Baseline Requirements Erik Andersen
- [pkix] Amendment to CABF Baseline Requirements Ben Wilson
- Re: [pkix] Amendment to CABF Baseline Requirements Carl Wallace
- Re: [pkix] Amendment to CABF Baseline Requirements Jeremy Rowley
- Re: [pkix] Amendment to CABF Baseline Requirements Michael StJohns
- Re: [pkix] Amendment to CABF Baseline Requirements Carl Wallace
- Re: [pkix] Amendment to CABF Baseline Requirements Ben Wilson
- Re: [pkix] Amendment to CABF Baseline Requirements Russ Housley
- Re: [pkix] Amendment to CABF Baseline Requirements Peter Bowen
- Re: [pkix] Amendment to CABF Baseline Requirements Erwann Abalea
- Re: [pkix] Amendment to CABF Baseline Requirements Erik Andersen
- Re: [pkix] Amendment to CABF Baseline Requirements Rob Stradling
- Re: [pkix] Amendment to CABF Baseline Requirement… Martin Rex
- Re: [pkix] Amendment to CABF Baseline Requirements Michael StJohns