[Rats] Re: Proposed Changes to the CoRIM Document

[Carl Wallace <[e-mail]>]

This is not related to the approaches you laid out, which seem fine, but since early reviews are arriving, I wanted to re-raise an earlier issue originally noted here [0].  I think the certificate validation steps in https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-rats-corim-09#section-9.3.4.4 are inadequate and again suggest that simply referencing Section 6 of RFC 5280 would make the most sense. As an example of a problem with the current text, given the lack of checking basicConstraints, what prevents someone with a private key corresponding to an unrevoked certificate with a chain for which signatures verify from generating new certificates that will pass these steps?

 

[0] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rats/CPgHg7xqRCW2TI59XIKcXXc3wnM/

 

From: Yogesh Deshpande <[e-mail]>
Date: Tuesday, January 20, 2026 at 5:45 AM
To: rats <[e-mail]>
Cc: "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>
Subject: [Rats] Proposed Changes to the CoRIM Document

 

Hello RATS WG,

 

Over the last six months, community members, our document shepherd, and IETF Directorate reviewers have provided valuable feedback on the CoRIM document.

 

At the outset, we'd like to thank everyone who took the time to provide comments. We understand that this is precious time.

 

One general theme among many comments was that the document was too long, which made it difficult for reviewers and implementers to consume.

 

To improve readability and facilitate implementation based on the specification, the authors/editors propose splitting the CoRIM document into two documents, as follows:

 

1. CoRIM data model: This document will define the information and data model required to construct CoRIM messages (sections 1–7 of the existing document).

 

2. CoRIM based appraisal: This document will describe the appraisal of Evidence using Endorsements and Reference Values encoded using the CoRIM data model (sections 8 and 9 of the existing document).

 

Please note that these two specifications will progress in lockstep and will be released as RFCs within the same timeframe.

 

If you have any objections to this approach, please let us know.

 

If the WG does not push back on the proposed approach, we would like to request the Chairs to approve the split without having to go through the adoption step.

 

Thank you,

CoRIM editors

 

Please note: Latest revision of the CoRIM document is at:  https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-rats-corim/

 

IMPORTANT NOTICE: The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to any other person, use it for any purpose, or store or copy the information in any medium. Thank you. 

_______________________________________________ RATS mailing list -- [e-mail] To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]