Re: [Sidrops] rev 4 (corrected CRLDP source changes, thanks to Tim)

[Oleg Muravskiy <[e-mail]>]

On 15 May 2020, at 09:08, Martin Hoffmann <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Stephen Kent wrote:
>> Tim,
>> 
>>> If not, then indeed we need to have a discussion about how to deal
>>> properly with multiple CRLS. E.g. do you check *all* of them for
>>> each issued certificate, or do you only check the CRL matching the
>>> CRLDP of that certificate? I would also be very curious to know
>>> which use case warrants having this complexity.  
>> 
>> My suggestion is the KISS approach - first .crl file that has a valid 
>> hash is the one to use, and others are ignored. That's less forgiving 
>> than what Rob accommodates, but being forgiving here might take
>> pressure of a CA to do its job properly.
> 
> I’m not sure it really does. Rather, it will lead to strange looking
> issues: If the wrong CRL accidentally made it onto the manifest and it
> comes first, all objects are invalid even though everything sort of
> looks fine. This may even come and go if a CA reorders the CRLs when
> it reissues the manifest[0]. If all CRLs are referenced by objects, some
> objects suddenly are invalid while others aren’t.
> 
> I think invalidating the manifest with a clear warning is the more
> straightforward approach and much easier to debug.

I tend to agree with this approach. It will keep RFC and validator’s code simple and force CAs to fix their bugs.

Oleg