Re: [pkix] [x500standard] Re: Indirect CRLs
"Erik Andersen" <era@x500.eu> Wed, 18 November 2015 09:33 UTC
Return-Path: <era@x500.eu>
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 AC7271B2B27 for <pkix@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 18 Nov 2015 01:33:10 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.591
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.591 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_EQ_DK=1.009, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] autolearn=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 sm3ajG0aY6V3 for <pkix@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 18 Nov 2015 01:33:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail03.dandomain.dk (mail03.dandomain.dk [194.150.112.203]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D7C941B2B26 for <pkix@ietf.org>; Wed, 18 Nov 2015 01:33:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: from Morten ([62.44.134.101]) by mail03.dandomain.dk (DanDomain Mailserver) with ASMTP id 3201511181033022227; Wed, 18 Nov 2015 10:33:02 +0100
From: Erik Andersen <era@x500.eu>
To: x500standard@freelists.org, 'PKIX' <pkix@ietf.org>
References: <002701d12053$dee21d30$9ca65790$@x500.eu> <012001d1208f$d8cab330$8a601990$@gmail.com> <003b01d1210f$ead18240$c07486c0$@x500.eu> <004c01d12113$1dd26d00$59774700$@x500.eu> <072301d12145$b905cc40$2b1164c0$@gmail.com> <5B1D7E570380A64989D4C069F7D14BC8DC3C6D9C@Mustang.missi.ncsc.mil>
In-Reply-To: <5B1D7E570380A64989D4C069F7D14BC8DC3C6D9C@Mustang.missi.ncsc.mil>
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2015 10:33:02 +0100
Message-ID: <000301d121e4$1f1c3f20$5d54bd60$@x500.eu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 15.0
Thread-Index: AQHe19kKlDjUbKxoDOCow0BcjpR94QJLV6rQAUpwCusCh7ACqwNmuTeoAU6HvoSeL39aYA==
Content-Language: en-gb
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pkix/vLDev8M_5Al4mlsmRs0TOpKq3o8>
Subject: Re: [pkix] [x500standard] Re: Indirect CRLs
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: Wed, 18 Nov 2015 09:33:10 -0000
Hi David, Thanks for your input. You are touching on something about entities. The entity concept is somewhat confusing. I have made a suggestion in the form of a defect report I have not so far published. I am not sure how it will be received. I have not included the issue on entity naming as you mentioned. The proposed defect report may be found on http://www.x500standard.com/uploads/Ig/DR_414.pdf. I will be happy for any comments and/or proposed enhancement. Kind regards, Erik -----Oprindelig meddelelse----- Fra: Kemp, David P. [mailto:DPKemp@missi.ncsc.mil] Sendt: 17 November 2015 20:45 Til: x500standard@freelists.org; 'Erik Andersen' <era@x500.eu>; 'PKIX' <pkix@ietf.org> Emne: RE: [x500standard] Re: [pkix] Indirect CRLs The confusion is worse than that: authority: An entity, responsible for the issuance of certificates. Two types are defined in this Recommendation | International Standard; a certification authority which issues public-key certificates and an attribute authority which issues attribute certificates. indirect CRL (iCRL): A revocation list that contains at least revocation information about certificates issued by authorities other than that which issued this CRL. According to these definitions, an iCRL is issued by an authority, which can be only an issuer of PKCs or an issuer of ACs. That's not just confusing, it's wrong. But assuming that a third type of authority is added to the definition, there is still the question of the relationship between entities and identifiers. If one entity has more than one identifier (e.g., a CA cert containing one subject name and an EE cert with a different subject name referenced in a CRL DP), the relying party has no way of determining that they are the same "entity". A heuristic definition of entity would say that two distinct identifiers refer to the same entity only if the identifiers are bound together, e.g., by appearing in the Subject Name and Subject Alt Name of the same certificate. So to answer your question, if you locally generate a new PKC with another subject name just for signing CRLs, then you have created a new authority / entity that is distinct from the CA. -----Original Message----- From: x500standard-bounce@freelists.org [mailto:x500standard-bounce@freelists.org] On Behalf Of Santosh Chokhani Sent: Tuesday, November 17, 2015 9:39 AM To: 'Erik Andersen'; x500standard@freelists.org; 'PKIX' Subject: [x500standard] Re: [pkix] Indirect CRLs Erik, Yes it is. There is no other mechanism defined in X.509 to delegate CRL issuance. From: Erik Andersen [mailto:era@x500.eu] Sent: Tuesday, November 17, 2015 3:37 AM To: 'Santosh Chokhani' <santosh.chokhani@gmail.com>; x500standard@freelists.org; 'PKIX' <pkix@ietf.org> 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. Regards, Erik Fra: pkix [mailto:pkix-bounces@ietf.org] På vegne af Erik Andersen Sendt: 17 November 2015 09:14 Til: 'Santosh Chokhani' <santosh.chokhani@gmail.com>; x500standard@freelists.org; 'PKIX' <pkix@ietf.org> 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 point. Kind regards, Erik Fra: pkix [mailto:pkix-bounces@ietf.org] På vegne af Santosh Chokhani Sendt: 16 November 2015 17:57 Til: x500standard@freelists.org; 'PKIX' <pkix@ietf.org> 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 issues. From: x500standard-bounce@freelists.org [mailto:x500standard-bounce@freelists.org] On Behalf Of Erik Andersen Sent: Monday, November 16, 2015 4:48 AM To: PKIX <pkix@ietf.org> Cc: Directory list <x500standard@freelists.org> 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? Erik
- [pkix] Indirect CRLs Erik Andersen
- Re: [pkix] [x500standard] Indirect CRLs Santosh Chokhani
- Re: [pkix] [x500standard] Indirect CRLs Erik Andersen
- Re: [pkix] [x500standard] Indirect CRLs Erik Andersen
- Re: [pkix] [x500standard] Indirect CRLs Santosh Chokhani
- Re: [pkix] [x500standard] Re: Indirect CRLs Kemp, David P.
- Re: [pkix] [x500standard] Re: Indirect CRLs Erik Andersen
- Re: [pkix] [x500standard] Indirect CRLs Martin Rex
- Re: [pkix] [x500standard] Indirect CRLs Santosh Chokhani
- Re: [pkix] [x500standard] Indirect CRLs Erik Andersen
- Re: [pkix] [x500standard] Indirect CRLs Martin Rex
- Re: [pkix] [x500standard] SV: Indirect CRLs Santosh Chokhani
- Re: [pkix] [x500standard] Indirect CRLs Santosh Chokhani
- Re: [pkix] [x500standard] Re: SV: Indirect CRLs Erik Andersen
- Re: [pkix] [x500standard] SV: Re: SV: Indirect CR… Santosh Chokhani
- Re: [pkix] [x500standard] SV: Re: SV: Indirect CR… Erik Andersen
- Re: [pkix] [x500standard] SV: Re: SV: Indirect CR… Stephen Farrell
- Re: [pkix] [x500standard] SV: Re: SV: Indirect CR… Erik Andersen
- Re: [pkix] [x500standard] SV: Re: SV: Indirect CR… Stephen Farrell