IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [pkix] Next edition of X.509

Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie> Sun, 24 January 2016 00:24 UTC

Return-Path: <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
X-Original-To: pkix@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: pkix@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 26EFA1B2C5A for <pkix@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 23 Jan 2016 16:24:06 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.302
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.302 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
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 raJ6N_a51hRn for <pkix@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 23 Jan 2016 16:24:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mercury.scss.tcd.ie (mercury.scss.tcd.ie [134.226.56.6]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D1B6B1B2C59 for <pkix@ietf.org>; Sat, 23 Jan 2016 16:24:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mercury.scss.tcd.ie (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7CAFDBE50; Sun, 24 Jan 2016 00:24:03 +0000 (GMT)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at scss.tcd.ie
Received: from mercury.scss.tcd.ie ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mercury.scss.tcd.ie [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id sdV6_WY9jExZ; Sun, 24 Jan 2016 00:24:02 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from [10.87.48.91] (unknown [86.46.16.108]) by mercury.scss.tcd.ie (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id CC8C3BE2C; Sun, 24 Jan 2016 00:24:01 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cs.tcd.ie; s=mail; t=1453595042; bh=JzP9EwUNpoA8+VC/RaOQ78Y+09IOiL9R9+ieukVIVRg=; h=Subject:To:References:Cc:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=ZIv6VfMdUzhpBovwxu13sQmfBw4ZGJWIdcve3dZqpzB0J+/jLZtwKKDoplpx4sill rtpfcQdrq6sDNLktTTcNvoOSd+Q0vmD9zXnZdruthQyk0h/+jl95XxtzpugTMartbM wzgVXSpAyaXme2n8D6fXKgnsp51t+OvgDDhKQbiU=
To: Peter Bowen <pzbowen@gmail.com>, Santosh Chokhani <santosh.chokhani@gmail.com>
References: <000001d130da$b05884d0$11098e70$@x500.eu> <5665633F.7070906@cs.tcd.ie> <000401d130e3$bdf08120$39d18360$@x500.eu> <CAK6vND_=4it-HdN=igWeSsb9Qx2LjastBaJCa-TpObaBuYjNXQ@mail.gmail.com> <000001d155c7$98b64530$ca22cf90$@x500.eu> <CAK6vND8AEeW0iF85guerFa-oj==MMMSLdU7fArBihQkGWmxhTw@mail.gmail.com> <56A3B913.3030506@comcast.net> <CAK6vND-Fs=SiFTUJmtXsKPNgenwBFCEb=4oVxQ8zxdG4kttOjA@mail.gmail.com> <052101d15636$aecdca40$0c695ec0$@gmail.com> <CAK6vND_Yr8+cVF-Y_L203XAAn0DeVn7ww18Np-K++4njqEeUTg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
Openpgp: id=D66EA7906F0B897FB2E97D582F3C8736805F8DA2; url=
Message-ID: <56A419A1.2040503@cs.tcd.ie>
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 2016 00:24:01 +0000
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.5.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAK6vND_Yr8+cVF-Y_L203XAAn0DeVn7ww18Np-K++4njqEeUTg@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pkix/lEqjV2DCOMQ0nFP37S8YdcO3nYc>
Cc: "<pkix@ietf.org>" <pkix@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [pkix] Next edition of X.509
X-BeenThere: pkix@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Sun, 24 Jan 2016 00:24:06 -0000

Hiya,

On 23/01/16 23:58, Peter Bowen wrote:
> Until it is clear that using
> EKU in the way I described in covered by X.509, it is not possible to
> have a strict profile (e.g. PKIX) include it in the profile.

I don't know what you mean by that, can you elaborate?

My guess is that almost nobody does new implementations of X.509
code nowadays, and those that might would go to 5280 and not the
latest version of X.509, but I'd be very interested if either of
those assumptions is wrong.

If I'm not wrong, then updates to the base X.509 spec are no
longer really important, other than for the sake of tidiness.
Another corollary would be that the opinions of people who
have no influence over running code but who think one document
or the other is more important, can safely be ignored. Again,
good to know it that's incorrect.

Thanks,
S.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email