Re: draft-ietf-pkix-rfc3770bis-01: key usage extension

Peter Sylvester <Peter.Sylvester@edelweb.fr> Fri, 15 April 2005 09:00 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 FAA08856 for <pkix-archive@lists.ietf.org>; Fri, 15 Apr 2005 05:00:21 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id j3F8An5C078823; Fri, 15 Apr 2005 01:10:49 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-ietf-pkix@mail.imc.org)
Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id j3F8AnEv078822; Fri, 15 Apr 2005 01:10:49 -0700 (PDT)
X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-pkix@mail.imc.org using -f
Received: from edelweb.fr (edelweb.fr [212.234.46.16]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id j3F8AlkP078774 for <ietf-pkix@imc.org>; Fri, 15 Apr 2005 01:10:48 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from Peter.Sylvester@edelweb.fr)
Received: from chandon.edelweb.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by edelweb.fr (8.11.7p1+Sun/8.11.7) with ESMTP id j3F8Ajn07800; Fri, 15 Apr 2005 10:10:45 +0200 (MEST)
Received: from chandon.edelweb.fr (chandon.edelweb.fr [193.51.14.162]) by edelweb.fr (nospam/2.0); Fri, 15 Apr 2005 10:10:45 +0200 (MET DST)
Received: (from peter@localhost) by chandon.edelweb.fr (8.11.7p1+Sun/8.11.7) id j3F8Aja03429; Fri, 15 Apr 2005 10:10:45 +0200 (MEST)
Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2005 10:10:45 +0200
From: Peter Sylvester <Peter.Sylvester@edelweb.fr>
Message-Id: <200504150810.j3F8Aja03429@chandon.edelweb.fr>
To: Peter.Sylvester@edelweb.fr, housley@vigilsec.com
Subject: Re: draft-ietf-pkix-rfc3770bis-01: key usage extension
Cc: ietf-pkix@imc.org
X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII
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>

> >
> >take a cert with all bit on. This is equivalent to having no keyUsage at all
> >as far as I remember. in this case the keyCertSign bit and the cRLSign are 
> >set,
> >and the above 'MUST NOT' prohibits use of this cert. is this what you intend?
> >I don't think so.
> >
> >Isn't the right wording: no known EAP usage requires keyCertSign or cRLSign?
> 
> How about: ... however, EAP methods MUST NOT require the keyCertSign bit or
> the cRLSign to be set in end entity certificates.


- the initial text had no keyUsage restriction.

- the current has a restriction that technically doesn't make any
  sense and is incompatible with the standard.

- Above you propose something that is a restriction for EAP methods
  which was not in 3770. Can you justify this change, please.


Peter
PS: Would it be possible to instruct your mail user agent not to send
me two copies just because I am twice in the To list, or else. Thanks