IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [pkix] [x500standard] Indirect CRLs

mrex@sap.com (Martin Rex) Thu, 19 November 2015 14:54 UTC

Return-Path: <mrex@sap.com>
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 7A0811B2AE0 for <pkix@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 19 Nov 2015 06:54:17 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.551
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.551 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, 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 L1N4zpbDQSw5 for <pkix@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 19 Nov 2015 06:54:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtpde01.smtp.sap-ag.de (smtpde01.smtp.sap-ag.de [155.56.68.170]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8D49D1B2AE5 for <pkix@ietf.org>; Thu, 19 Nov 2015 06:54:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail05.wdf.sap.corp (mail05.sap.corp [194.39.131.55]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtpde01.smtp.sap-ag.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9B0992AEC1; Thu, 19 Nov 2015 15:54:11 +0100 (CET)
X-purgate-ID: 152705::1447944851-00006F99-3EA62C2E/0/0
X-purgate-size: 298
X-purgate: clean
X-purgate: This mail is considered clean (visit http://www.eleven.de for further information)
X-purgate-Ad: Categorized by eleven eXpurgate (R) http://www.eleven.de
X-purgate-type: clean
X-SAP-SPAM-Status: clean
Received: from ld9781.wdf.sap.corp (ld9781.wdf.sap.corp [10.21.82.193]) by mail05.wdf.sap.corp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8BF7040F2B; Thu, 19 Nov 2015 15:54:11 +0100 (CET)
Received: by ld9781.wdf.sap.corp (Postfix, from userid 10159) id 819BD1A383; Thu, 19 Nov 2015 15:54:11 +0100 (CET)
In-Reply-To: <012001d1208f$d8cab330$8a601990$@gmail.com>
To: Santosh Chokhani <santosh.chokhani@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 2015 15:54:11 +0100
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL125 (25)]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Message-Id: <20151119145411.819BD1A383@ld9781.wdf.sap.corp>
From: mrex@sap.com
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pkix/vyEKvCG0IJoI4IJs2ziEaOUQKxg>
Cc: x500standard@freelists.org, 'PKIX' <pkix@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [pkix] [x500standard] Indirect CRLs
X-BeenThere: pkix@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
Reply-To: mrex@sap.com
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: Thu, 19 Nov 2015 14:54:17 -0000

Santosh Chokhani wrote:
> 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.

Huh?  The latter comment has exactly nothing to do with indirect CRLs.

-Martin

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email