Re: [pkix] TAMP spec

[Geoff Beier <[e-mail]>]

Hi Denis,

I haven't looked at the rest of your email, but I don't understand
this portion of your commentary:

On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 04:23, Denis Pinkas <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> I am still wondering whether the draft complies with
> draft-ietf-pkix-ta-mgmt-reqs-04.
> On page 11, we have:
>
> 3.5.  RFC 5280 Support
> 3.5.1.  Functional Requirements
>    A trust anchor management protocol MUST enable management of trust
>    anchors that will be used to validate certification paths and CRLs in
>    accordance with [RFC5280] and [RFC5055].  A trust anchor format MUST
>    enable the representation of constraints that influence certification
>    path validation or otherwise establish the scope of usage of the
>    trust anchor public key.  Examples of such constraints are name
>    constraints, certificate policies, and key usage.
>
> The problem is that the current format does not allow a RP or a TAS manager
> to add constraints
> to a self-signed certificate. This limitation should be mentioned in the
> TAMP draft
> (or the TAMP draft should be changed).
>

To add constraints to a self-signed certificate, you simply wrap it in
a TrustAnchorInfo structure. This works well. The certificate field of
the CertPathControls structure lets you keep the self-signed
certificate and add your constraints.Other fields of TrustAnchorInfo
can be filled in as part of your store management process.

Regards,

Geoff