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

[Martin Hoffmann <[e-mail]>]

Stephen Kent wrote:
> 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.

My apologies if this was cryptic. I just wanted to caution against
devising complicated heuristics to try and salvage a manifest with
multiple CRLs.

As I elsewhere already voiced my preference for your proposal to simply
invalidate the manifest if there are multuple CRLs, you can safely
ignore the message, though ...

Kind regards,
Martin