Re: [pkix] [x500standard] Indirect CRLs

"Santosh Chokhani" <> Tue, 17 November 2015 14:39 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 281BB1A88C0 for <>; Tue, 17 Nov 2015 06:39:12 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id wIF6g0r59V9g for <>; Tue, 17 Nov 2015 06:39:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c09::235]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E981E1A8856 for <>; Tue, 17 Nov 2015 06:39:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: by qkas77 with SMTP id s77so3324958qka.0 for <>; Tue, 17 Nov 2015 06:39:09 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20120113; h=from:to:references:in-reply-to:subject:date:message-id:mime-version :content-type:thread-index:content-language; bh=6uCHpnXm0Y18mDAckngRNCJJgTceMoJV5VCflMZPkJc=; b=u5ORpsM4AdyuLU3QjX0R27xdI/pxTvkJMx2LbdpTeOaSrQq5erxjbd9TOa1HEVkq9G ztQ3osNbeq8I6OMCTooDeBPiP6NqG7OHnmkjUVjhBkNleE1M89XjAcj5ndu+5fF+MibZ f4U0+LUqgdS/BDkvM3MYL9hLrfvP7MqfibTRz1O+ujfjfzWumB5EggL9s0EEzZu3cK8v eMKMTJcUyqvmXLBRDfomnD4CCitn4G8XbdFb9SMVXkh28EkSq3kXJmBQ3l+j7fyjNBp5 1mCz8df+1K5Kpgnjg8iRKzjS492wqK6MFFosBi7Yjvq7SsM7yCj+6q1v6zpNZbizHy0M 8//A==
X-Received: by with SMTP id v63mr41707305qka.105.1447771149084; Tue, 17 Nov 2015 06:39:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: from SantoshBrain ( []) by with ESMTPSA id w14sm10228768qge.24.2015. (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 17 Nov 2015 06:39:08 -0800 (PST)
From: "Santosh Chokhani" <>
To: "'Erik Andersen'" <>, <>, "'PKIX'" <>
References: <002701d12053$dee21d30$9ca65790$> <012001d1208f$d8cab330$8a601990$> <003b01d1210f$ead18240$c07486c0$> <004c01d12113$1dd26d00$59774700$>
In-Reply-To: <004c01d12113$1dd26d00$59774700$>
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 2015 09:39:10 -0500
Message-ID: <072301d12145$b905cc40$2b1164c0$>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0724_01D1211B.D033BBE0"
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 15.0
Thread-Index: AQHe19kKlDjUbKxoDOCow0BcjpR94QJLV6rQAUpwCusCh7ACq55T7YCA
Content-Language: en-us
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [pkix] [x500standard] Indirect CRLs
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: PKIX Working Group <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 17 Nov 2015 14:39:12 -0000



Yes it is.


There is no other mechanism defined in X.509 to delegate CRL issuance.  


From: Erik Andersen [] 
Sent: Tuesday, November 17, 2015 3:37 AM
To: 'Santosh Chokhani' <>om>;; 'PKIX' <>
Subject: SV: [pkix] [x500standard] Indirect CRLs


Hi Santosh,


In continuation, I checked the X.509 definition for  indirect CRL :


3.5.36   indirect CRL (iCRL): A revocation list that contains at least
revocation information about certificates issued by authorities other than
that which issued this CRL.


This could be a little confusing.


As I understand from your answer, if I as CA delegate the CRL issuing to a
closely related function or even if I locally generate a new PKC with
another subject name  just for signing CRLs, it is still an indirect CRL.






Fra: pkix [] På vegne af Erik Andersen
Sendt: 17 November 2015 09:14
Til: 'Santosh Chokhani' <
<> >;
<> ; 'PKIX' <
<> >
Emne: Re: [pkix] [x500standard] Indirect CRLs


Hi Santosh,


Thanks a lot for your answer.


My first impression reading the text was that an indirect CRL is one that
potentially holds revocation information from multiple CAs. Others may have
the same impression. I will check X.509 to see  if it  clear enough on this


Kind regards,




Fra: pkix [] På vegne af Santosh Chokhani
Sendt: 16 November 2015 17:57
Til: <> ; 'PKIX'
< <> >
Emne: Re: [pkix] [x500standard] Indirect CRLs


Yes.  That is an indirect CRL.


Note that the CA needs to assert appropriate cRLIssuer in the
DistributionPoint field of CRL DP extension of each certificate the CA


[] On Behalf Of Erik Andersen
Sent: Monday, November 16, 2015 4:48 AM
To: PKIX < <> >
Cc: Directory list <
<> >
Subject: [x500standard] Indirect CRLs


I have a question related to indirect CRLs. RFC 5280 in Section 5:


If the scope of the CRL includes one or more certificates issued by

an entity other than the CRL issuer, then it is an indirect CRL.


If a CA has delegated CRL issuing to another entity, but this entity only
issues revocation status for certificates issued by that CA, is the CRL then
an indirect CRL?