IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Online Certificate Revocation Protocol

Tony Bartoletti <azb@llnl.gov> Mon, 11 June 2001 18:57 UTC

Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA16890 for <pkix-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Mon, 11 Jun 2001 14:57:10 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by above.proper.com (8.11.3/8.11.3) id f5BIFal12928 for ietf-pkix-bks; Mon, 11 Jun 2001 11:15:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp-2.llnl.gov (smtp-2.llnl.gov [128.115.250.82]) by above.proper.com (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id f5BIFaJ12924 for <ietf-pkix@imc.org>; Mon, 11 Jun 2001 11:15:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from poptop.llnl.gov (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp-2.llnl.gov (8.9.3/8.9.3/LLNL-gateway-1.0) with ESMTP id LAA00836; Mon, 11 Jun 2001 11:15:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from catalyst.llnl.gov (catalyst.llnl.gov [128.115.222.68]) by poptop.llnl.gov (8.8.8/LLNL-3.0.2/pop.llnl.gov-5.1) with ESMTP id LAA21638; Mon, 11 Jun 2001 11:15:32 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20010611111816.00b14630@poptop.llnl.gov>
X-Sender: e048786@poptop.llnl.gov
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2001 11:23:05 -0700
To: pgut001@cs.auckland.ac.nz, hansenw@ece.ubc.ca
From: Tony Bartoletti <azb@llnl.gov>
Subject: Re: Online Certificate Revocation Protocol
Cc: ietf-pkix@imc.org
In-Reply-To: <99217408515135@kahu.cs.auckland.ac.nz>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Sender: owner-ietf-pkix@mail.imc.org
Precedence: bulk
List-Archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-pkix/mail-archive/>
List-ID: <ietf-pkix.imc.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-pkix-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe>
List-ID: <ietf-pkix.imc.org>

Peter,

You are "quoting" (indenting?) Hansen Wangs words, not mine.
(Darn Software :)

___tony___

At 11:54 PM 6/10/01 +0000, Peter Gutmann wrote:
>Tony Bartoletti <azb@llnl.gov> writes:
>
> >Assuming that the entity which lost their private key wanted another
> >certificate with a new key pair but wanted the same name. What would
> >happen if their were two certificates in existance with the same name?
> >Wouldn't the CA not allow this?
>
>CMP already does this via key update request handling, which issues a new 
>cert
>which duplicates an existing one (and having had to implement this I can tell
>you that it's a right bastard to do if your CA has built-in security rules to
>prevent this situation from occurring).
>
>Peter.

Tony Bartoletti 925-422-3881 <azb@llnl.gov>
Information Operations, Warfare and Assurance Center
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
Livermore, CA 94551-9900

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email