Re: [pkix] [x500standard] Indirect CRLs
"Erik Andersen" <era@x500.eu> Tue, 17 November 2015 08:37 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 6F6681B2C96 for <pkix@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 17 Nov 2015 00:37:01 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.59
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.59 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_EQ_DK=1.009, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, 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 FbRvmc3sBAkc for <pkix@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 17 Nov 2015 00:36:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail04.dandomain.dk (mail04.dandomain.dk [194.150.112.204]) (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 320821B2C94 for <pkix@ietf.org>; Tue, 17 Nov 2015 00:36:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: from Morten ([62.44.134.101]) by mail04.dandomain.dk (DanDomain Mailserver) with ASMTP id 4201511170936555145; Tue, 17 Nov 2015 09:36:55 +0100
From: Erik Andersen <era@x500.eu>
To: 'Santosh Chokhani' <santosh.chokhani@gmail.com>, x500standard@freelists.org, 'PKIX' <pkix@ietf.org>
References: <002701d12053$dee21d30$9ca65790$@x500.eu> <012001d1208f$d8cab330$8a601990$@gmail.com> <003b01d1210f$ead18240$c07486c0$@x500.eu>
In-Reply-To: <003b01d1210f$ead18240$c07486c0$@x500.eu>
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 2015 09:36:55 +0100
Message-ID: <004c01d12113$1dd26d00$59774700$@x500.eu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_004D_01D1211B.7F97E670"
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 15.0
Thread-Index: AQHe19kKlDjUbKxoDOCow0BcjpR94QJLV6rQAUpwCuueZ8U8cA==
Content-Language: en-gb
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pkix/zsAisocE1XKBPWxECNocj2Cyojg>
Subject: Re: [pkix] [x500standard] 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: Tue, 17 Nov 2015 08:37:01 -0000
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 <mailto:x500standard@freelists.org> ; 'PKIX' <pkix@ietf.org <mailto: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> [mailto:x500standard-bounce@freelists.org] On Behalf Of Erik Andersen Sent: Monday, November 16, 2015 4:48 AM To: PKIX <pkix@ietf.org <mailto:pkix@ietf.org> > Cc: Directory list <x500standard@freelists.org <mailto: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