Re: [pkix] Question about RFC 3125

Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com> Tue, 12 November 2019 22:00 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 D9E0A120842 for <pkix@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 12 Nov 2019 14:00:55 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.896
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.896 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 6ZVWkWAnN92V for <pkix@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 12 Nov 2019 14:00:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.smeinc.net (mail.smeinc.net [209.135.209.11]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 427EB12011D for <pkix@ietf.org>; Tue, 12 Nov 2019 14:00:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.smeinc.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7E156300B29 for <pkix@ietf.org>; Tue, 12 Nov 2019 17:00:51 -0500 (EST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at mail.smeinc.net
Received: from mail.smeinc.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mail.smeinc.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10026) with ESMTP id vdIBOUoVN3tJ for <pkix@ietf.org>; Tue, 12 Nov 2019 17:00:49 -0500 (EST)
Received: from [5.5.33.39] (unknown [204.194.23.17]) by mail.smeinc.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 51458300B1D; Tue, 12 Nov 2019 17:00:49 -0500 (EST)
From: Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com>
Message-Id: <C676E63D-0B8C-4166-9893-DD48320DF0FA@vigilsec.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_FFBA6831-4D69-4617-B320-C8E742E6B127"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.11\))
Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2019 17:00:49 -0500
In-Reply-To: <d262376e-e257-884d-a85e-354ea31439ed@free.fr>
Cc: IETF PKIX <pkix@ietf.org>
To: Denis <denis.ietf@free.fr>
References: <86666A58-1AAA-4CEA-AADC-BDBCDFDD6519@vigilsec.com> <d262376e-e257-884d-a85e-354ea31439ed@free.fr>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.11)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pkix/lQYvIa-DmhEOszoP6LKRzwX1Mrw>
Subject: Re: [pkix] Question about RFC 3125
X-BeenThere: pkix@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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, 12 Nov 2019 22:00:56 -0000

Denis:

I understand the age of the document.  I notice that RFC 3126 was replaced by a newer version, but this one was not.

Russ


> On Nov 12, 2019, at 11:02 AM, Denis <denis.ietf@free.fr>; wrote:
> 
> Hello Russ,
> 
> I wonder why you have an interest, today, in a document that was written ... 18 years ago.
> 
> FYI, ETSI TC ESI sent for a public review until the August 31, 2019 a document about signature policies:
> draft TS 119 172-2: Signature Policies; Part 2: XML format for signature policies, and
> draft TS 119 172-3: Signature Policies; Part 3: ASN.1 format for signature policies
> These documents are still downloadable from: http://docbox.etsi.org/ESI/Open/Latest_Drafts/ <http://docbox.etsi.org/ESI/Open/Latest_Drafts/>
> 
> More specifically from :
> https://docbox.etsi.org/ESI/Open/Latest_Drafts/ESI-0019172-2v003-public.pdf <https://docbox.etsi.org/ESI/Open/Latest_Drafts/ESI-0019172-2v003-public.pdf>
> and 
> https://docbox.etsi.org/ESI/Open/Latest_Drafts/ESI-0019172-3v003-public.pdf <https://docbox.etsi.org/ESI/Open/Latest_Drafts/ESI-0019172-3v003-public.pdf>
> 
> I prepared and sent 43 comments on Part 2 only, since IMO, it was not necessary anymore to define a signature policy using ASN.1.
> 
> Now, to answer your question, the intent in RFC 3125 was to have an OID, in order to have an unambiguous meaning, whatever the local language 
> of the signer and of the verifier would be.
> 
> Denis
> 
> 
>> Section 3.4 of RFC 3125 talks about Commitment Rules, and it specifies the following structure:
>> 
>>    CommitmentType ::= SEQUENCE {
>>         identifier                      CommitmentTypeIdentifier,
>>         fieldOfApplication      [0] FieldOfApplication OPTIONAL,
>>         semantics               [1] DirectoryString OPTIONAL }
>> 
>> However, CommitmentTypeIdentifier is never defined.  Is it an object identifier?
>> 
>> Can anyone point to a public signature policy that uses the SignaturePolicy defined in RFC 3125?
>> 
>> Russ
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> pkix mailing list
>> pkix@ietf.org <mailto:pkix@ietf.org>
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pkix <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pkix>
> 
> _______________________________________________
> pkix mailing list
> pkix@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pkix