IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [pkix] Should a CRL be required for an OCSP service provider to assert status.

Stephen Kent <kent@bbn.com> Tue, 14 June 2016 17:10 UTC

Return-Path: <kent@bbn.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 8F74E12D600 for <pkix@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 14 Jun 2016 10:10:21 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.626
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.626 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.426, SPF_PASS=-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 88RMzl96tjJL for <pkix@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 14 Jun 2016 10:10:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp.bbn.com (smtp.bbn.com [128.33.1.81]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0F33712D5D0 for <pkix@ietf.org>; Tue, 14 Jun 2016 10:10:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dhcp89-089-218.bbn.com ([128.89.89.218]:51495) by smtp.bbn.com with esmtp (Exim 4.77 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <kent@bbn.com>) id 1bCrqs-0008qh-Rp; Tue, 14 Jun 2016 13:10:10 -0400
To: Erwann Abalea <eabalea@gmail.com>
References: <20160610154052.2940E1A4E5@ld9781.wdf.sap.corp> <8c4ef11b-f3e2-0d03-3a33-45fadc1931c1@bbn.com> <CA+i=0E6cL8EBpd6sryMFmbfXZf-shYjhVsUgDcUMDiCSrKFE_g@mail.gmail.com>
From: Stephen Kent <kent@bbn.com>
Message-ID: <98502a58-eeb6-7383-563a-da4f80de9d62@bbn.com>
Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2016 13:10:10 -0400
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.11; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.1.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CA+i=0E6cL8EBpd6sryMFmbfXZf-shYjhVsUgDcUMDiCSrKFE_g@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------0C3D75F9E90981E74E0DEF40"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pkix/fGjm5vtVylBcmnC0VFqhDLikF2U>
Cc: "<pkix@ietf.org>" <pkix@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [pkix] Should a CRL be required for an OCSP service provider to assert status.
X-BeenThere: pkix@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: Tue, 14 Jun 2016 17:10:21 -0000

Erwann,

Thanks for the clarification. Seems the scope of this private extension 
is even narrower than I thought.

Steve


> Bonjour,
>
> 2016-06-13 23:06 GMT+02:00 Stephen Kent <kent@bbn.com 
> <mailto:kent@bbn.com>>:
>
>     [...]
>
>     Yes, the EU defined a _private_ extension (CertHash) to support
>     the notion of expanding the scope of OCSP. If an OCSP server
>     operator assumes that all of the OCSP clients it deals with
>     recognize this private, non-critical extension, then it is
>     obviously free to make use of it.
>
>
> s/EU/Germany/
>
> Thinking EU leads to eIDAS, and this CertHash isn't part of ETSI 
> standards used for eIDAS.
>
> -- 
> Erwann.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email