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

[Stephen Kent <[e-mail]>]

Martin,
> 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.
>
> Kind regards,
> Martin
>
> [0] That may happen if it is file system based and just adds files as
>      they appear when reading the directory without sorting the file
>      names first.

I'm not sure what to make of your message.

I don 't see a specific proposal here.

Steve