Re: [Sidrops] Benjamin Kaduk's No Objection on draft-ietf-sidrops-https-tal-07: (with COMMENT)

Tim Bruijnzeels <> Fri, 03 May 2019 07:23 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 19B8312006B; Fri, 3 May 2019 00:23:46 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3ukycu6xT_ka; Fri, 3 May 2019 00:23:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 952D6120044; Fri, 3 May 2019 00:23:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [IPv6:2001:981:4b52:1:c2:9a30:b88f:6115] (unknown [IPv6:2001:981:4b52:1:c2:9a30:b88f:6115]) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 2944A201C0; Fri, 3 May 2019 09:23:41 +0200 (CEST)
Authentication-Results:; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none)
Authentication-Results:; spf=fail
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;; s=default; t=1556868221; bh=+fajtRcslZ4+kz3iZBV4HBbR78/uguZ1T7HZV7qXYjw=; h=Subject:From:In-Reply-To:Date:Cc:References:To; b=UpQQY2neCq5nftweZXAGrGTraz4pZ78l0r3Bdz2n9gAbYpUferrLEOv33XTCpqIjR ZKxc0QvXBQDQUmCbTdPAlUVpnC52gsfEXTQPVwy9yh4ehTuXYwxyZM9lVJlLarErG+ ORwnMyZaROW2Q3jLPolSrqhSr7bPphUtzqizyBfs=
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_EE527C0F-B2DE-4413-B635-1C27E7A8832D"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.8\))
From: Tim Bruijnzeels <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Fri, 03 May 2019 09:23:37 +0200
Cc: The IESG <>, Chris Morrow <>,,,
Message-Id: <>
References: <> <> <>
To: Benjamin Kaduk <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.8)
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Sidrops] Benjamin Kaduk's No Objection on draft-ietf-sidrops-https-tal-07: (with COMMENT)
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: A list for the SIDR Operations WG <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 03 May 2019 07:23:46 -0000

Hi Ben,

> On 3 May 2019, at 03:03, Benjamin Kaduk <> wrote:
>> Note that, although a Man in the Middle (MITM) cannot produce a CA
>> certificate that would be considered valid according to the process
>> described in Section 3, this attack can prevent that the Relying Party
>> learns about an updated CA certificate.
> I think (but am only about 80% sure) that we want "updated or removed"
> here.  So add it if it makes sense to you, and if not, don't worry about
> it.

I don't think "removed" applies here. If the TA intended to no longer publish a certificate for a key, that would imply that they are trying to do a key roll. Key rolls are not covered by this document.

There is another document that talks about TA key rolls - using a signed object, with TAL like content:

This draft is currently expired, but as co-author I plan to do an update at least in time for IETF105. I was postponing the update because I had hoped to do some proof of concept implementation first.


> Thanks,
> Ben