[sidr] query about certificate validity times

Sandra Murphy <sandy@tislabs.com> Wed, 06 April 2016 16:52 UTC

Return-Path: <sandy@tislabs.com>
X-Original-To: sidr@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: sidr@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DD96312D5E7 for <sidr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 6 Apr 2016 09:52:03 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.911
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.911 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=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 4itw_o6-Pdsh for <sidr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 6 Apr 2016 09:52:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from walnut.tislabs.com (walnut.tislabs.com [192.94.214.200]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CEE0112D5E2 for <sidr@ietf.org>; Wed, 6 Apr 2016 09:52:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nova.tislabs.com (unknown [10.66.1.77]) by walnut.tislabs.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 33EF828B005C for <sidr@ietf.org>; Wed, 6 Apr 2016 12:52:01 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from [IPv6:::1] (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by nova.tislabs.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3AA821F801E; Wed, 6 Apr 2016 12:51:59 -0400 (EDT)
From: Sandra Murphy <sandy@tislabs.com>
X-Pgp-Agent: GPGMail 2.5.2
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_9CD6A737-A657-459F-AE16-61EE32B9BF1F"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="pgp-sha512"
Date: Wed, 06 Apr 2016 12:51:52 -0400
Message-Id: <DE67750C-DE88-4134-B75D-304A6D50C3EC@tislabs.com>
To: sidr <sidr@ietf.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\))
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/sidr/R2_F5sN2livw9GFI10YrciaGxI4>
Cc: Sandra Murphy <sandy@tislabs.com>
Subject: [sidr] query about certificate validity times
X-BeenThere: sidr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: Secure Interdomain Routing <sidr.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/sidr>, <mailto:sidr-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/sidr/>
List-Post: <mailto:sidr@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:sidr-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr>, <mailto:sidr-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 06 Apr 2016 16:52:04 -0000

Speaking only as a regular ol’ wg member.

Thought I’d bring this up while lots of people are here together.

I happened to ask a question of an RIR that identified an error - a certificate they issued did not include all the resources of an organization that it should have included.

The RIR corrected the error, adding the missing resources.

Except that I noted that the validity start date of the new expanded certificate had not changed.

I checked to see if this was deliberate — to make the certified resources as they should always have been.

But (if I understand correctly) when the RIR issues a new cert with added resources, they do not change the validity start time.

This is a problem for historical forensic analysis (credit Doug Montgomery for that phrase).

Of course, I could have misunderstood.

I’m curious.  What thinks the wg?  What thinks those who are operating CAs?

—Sandy, speaking only as regular ol’ member