Re: [pkix] A non-compliant use of the EKU extension in Mozilla's CA Certificate Policy Version 2.1.

Stephen Kent <kent@bbn.com> Wed, 20 February 2013 14:56 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 2A02121F8726 for <pkix@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 20 Feb 2013 06:56:08 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -106.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id QzKmlveZ8lJ0 for <pkix@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 20 Feb 2013 06:56:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp.bbn.com (smtp.bbn.com [128.33.1.81]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AA80C21F8759 for <pkix@ietf.org>; Wed, 20 Feb 2013 06:56:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: from dhcp89-089-230.bbn.com ([128.89.89.230]:52381) by smtp.bbn.com with esmtp (Exim 4.77 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <kent@bbn.com>) id 1U8B5Z-000Am0-B5; Wed, 20 Feb 2013 09:56:05 -0500
Message-ID: <5124E404.2080500@bbn.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2013 09:56:04 -0500
From: Stephen Kent <kent@bbn.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130107 Thunderbird/17.0.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Peter Gutmann <pgut001@cs.auckland.ac.nz>, pkix <pkix@ietf.org>
References: <9A043F3CF02CD34C8E74AC1594475C733340E7BB@uxcn10-2.UoA.auckland.ac.nz>
In-Reply-To: <9A043F3CF02CD34C8E74AC1594475C733340E7BB@uxcn10-2.UoA.auckland.ac.nz>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [pkix] A non-compliant use of the EKU extension in Mozilla's CA Certificate Policy Version 2.1.
X-BeenThere: pkix@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Wed, 20 Feb 2013 14:56:08 -0000

If all widely-used -adopted practices were good, we would adopt more of 
them.

That is clearly not the case. And, often, those who choose to adopt a 
practice
that contradicts the standards do so before approaching PKIX. In such 
cases, adopting
what has been done encourages the practice of avoiding the IETF process 
in favor
of a "big vendor has decided to do X, so let's reward them with an RFC."

That's a bad idea in any WG context.

Steve


On 2/19/13 7:41 PM, Peter Gutmann wrote:
> Stephen Kent <kent@bbn.com> writes:
>
>> I think it unfortunate that Mozilla is advising folks to use EKU in a fashion
>> that is not supported by X.509 or 5280. (Specifically, a compliant RP should
>> not reject a subordinate cert based on an EKU value encountered in a CA cert
>> higher in a cert path.)
> The other way of looking at it is that it's unfortunate that PKIX refuses to
> standardise a widely-used and -adopted practice.  As Stefan pointed out, this
> is just another case of reality vs. PKIX, reality will keep being what it is
> and PKIX will keep going down its own path, unconstrained by reality.
>
> Peter.
> _______________________________________________
> pkix mailing list
> pkix@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pkix
>