IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com> Tue, 30 October 2012 19:36 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 BF0DE21F8621 for <pkix@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 30 Oct 2012 12:36:15 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.506
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.506 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.093, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 i4pkr7Fig4tt for <pkix@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 30 Oct 2012 12:36:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from odin.smetech.net (mail.smetech.net [208.254.26.82]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C833521F861F for <pkix@ietf.org>; Tue, 30 Oct 2012 12:36:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (unknown [208.254.26.81]) by odin.smetech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id EA3E89A4006; Tue, 30 Oct 2012 15:36:22 -0400 (EDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at smetech.net
Received: from odin.smetech.net ([208.254.26.82]) by localhost (ronin.smetech.net [208.254.26.81]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 2SbXanLqvPf1; Tue, 30 Oct 2012 15:36:02 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from [192.168.2.100] (pool-96-255-37-162.washdc.fios.verizon.net [96.255.37.162]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by odin.smetech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 23D509A4002; Tue, 30 Oct 2012 15:36:22 -0400 (EDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1085)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
From: Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com>
In-Reply-To: <53EA47528D6ACF4486AA152F92C2B6982A5F9E@xmb-rcd-x03.cisco.com>
Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2012 15:36:12 -0400
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <82D5728C-5DD7-4EB7-B9E4-8F9645DD9A6D@vigilsec.com>
References: <CCB55CA3.52588%stefan@aaa-sec.com> <53EA47528D6ACF4486AA152F92C2B6982A5F9E@xmb-rcd-x03.cisco.com>
To: Stefan Santesson <stefan@aaa-sec.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1085)
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 19:36:15 -0000

> #1 
> 
> The system should fail closed. I agree with Paul Hoffman's point that this extends the definition of the 'revoked' response during this protocol exchange which must be noted. I'd also accept a new "unknown, fail closed" type response so long as clients that don't yet understand this new response fail closed.

Max and Paul have raised good points. I support #1, if and only if there is a way for the relying party to tell wether the OCSP Responder is using the original definition or the new and improved one.

Russ

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email