Re: [sidr] Validation reconsidered and X.509v3 extension OIDs

Stephen Kent <> Wed, 20 July 2016 17:50 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 426B312D0ED for <>; Wed, 20 Jul 2016 10:50:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.488
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.488 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.287, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id W97NU4TSetwk for <>; Wed, 20 Jul 2016 10:50:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DFE7A12D943 for <>; Wed, 20 Jul 2016 10:50:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ([]:41356 helo=COMSEC.fios-router.home) by with esmtp (Exim 4.77 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <>) id 1bPvdj-000FQ9-9X; Wed, 20 Jul 2016 13:50:35 -0400
To: Tim Bruijnzeels <>
References: <> <> <>
From: Stephen Kent <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2016 13:50:35 -0400
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.11; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.2.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [sidr] Validation reconsidered and X.509v3 extension OIDs
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: Secure Interdomain Routing <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2016 17:50:44 -0000


> Hi,
> So, to be clear I think this is the related text in section 9 of RFC 6487:
>     A new document will be issued as an update to this RFC.  The CP for
>     the RPKI [RFC6484] will be updated to reference the new certificate
>     profile.  The new CP will define a new policy OID for certificates
>     issued under the new certificate profile.
> And references in 6484 (CP) to 6487 should be reviewed and reference the validation-reconsidered instead (since it updates the profile), and we should have another OID instead of the one section 1.2. But there is no need to use a different OID for the RFC3779 extensions used. Right?
Thanks for reminding me of the text in section 9 of 6487. Immediately 
after the paragraph you cite the text says that an update to 6487 
requires establishing a timeline for a three phase transition process, 
something we have yet to discuss, and which is not yet part of the 
validation reconsidered I-D.

I believe that Rob suggested using a different OID for the 3779 
extensions because he wants currently-deployed code to continue to work 
with any software that relies on the cert validation procedure defined 
in 3779. A new OID for the extensions would allow software to know which 
type of processing is to be used when encountering a cert extension. So, 
for that reason, and to be consistent with the notion of a phased 
transition process, I believe there is a need for a new OID for the 3779