RE: Request change in son-of-rfc2633
Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com> Tue, 28 October 2003 23:08 UTC
Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA05441 for <smime-archive@lists.ietf.org>; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 18:08:43 -0500 (EST)
Received: from above.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.10/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h9SMOQI7009115 for <ietf-smime-bks@above.proper.com>; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 14:24:26 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-smime@mail.imc.org)
Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.10/8.12.9/Submit) id h9SMOQ5e009114 for ietf-smime-bks; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 14:24:26 -0800 (PST)
X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-smime@mail.imc.org using -f
Received: from woodstock.binhost.com (woodstock.binhost.com [144.202.240.3]) by above.proper.com (8.12.10/8.12.8) with SMTP id h9SMOPI7009109 for <ietf-smime@imc.org>; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 14:24:25 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from housley@vigilsec.com)
Received: (qmail 31755 invoked by uid 0); 28 Oct 2003 22:24:19 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO Russ-Laptop.vigilsec.com) (65.222.154.73) by woodstock.binhost.com with SMTP; 28 Oct 2003 22:24:19 -0000
Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20031028084138.02012898@mail.binhost.com>
X-Sender: housley@mail.binhost.com
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9
Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2003 08:47:08 -0500
To: pgut001@cs.auckland.ac.nz, blake@brutesquadlabs.com, jimsch@exmsft.com, pgut001@cs.auckland.ac.nz
From: Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com>
Subject: RE: Request change in son-of-rfc2633
Cc: ietf-smime@imc.org
In-Reply-To: <200310280132.h9S1WSx01353@cs.auckland.ac.nz>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Sender: owner-ietf-smime@mail.imc.org
Precedence: bulk
List-Archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-smime/mail-archive/>
List-ID: <ietf-smime.imc.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-smime-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe>
I disagree. Key identifiers are much smaller than <issuer distinguished name, serial number>. When the key identifiers are computed from the public key (as is recommended by RFC 3280), the likelihood of collision is acceptably small. Further, if there is a collision, an implementation can try the very small number of public keys that have the same identifier. Russ At 02:32 PM 10/28/2003 +1300, Peter Gutmann wrote: >"Blake Ramsdell" <blake@brutesquadlabs.com> writes: > > >S/MIME v3.1 implementations MUST allow for the use of the choice of > >subjectKeyIdentifier in messages. > >Given the recent debate over the use of keyIDs on the PKIX list, shouldn't >this be: > > S/MIME vAnything MUST NOT rely on the use of subjectKeyIdentifier in > messages. > >Peter.
- Request change in son-of-rfc2633 Jim Schaad
- Re: Request change in son-of-rfc2633 Russ Housley
- Re: Request change in son-of-rfc2633 Peter Gutmann
- RE: Request change in son-of-rfc2633 Blake Ramsdell
- RE: Request change in son-of-rfc2633 Peter Gutmann
- RE: Request change in son-of-rfc2633 Blake Ramsdell
- RE: Request change in son-of-rfc2633 Peter Gutmann
- RE: Request change in son-of-rfc2633 Blake Ramsdell
- RE: Request change in son-of-rfc2633 Russ Housley
- RE: Request change in son-of-rfc2633 Blake Ramsdell
- RE: Request change in son-of-rfc2633 Russ Housley
- RE: Request change in son-of-rfc2633 Peter Gutmann
- RE: Request change in son-of-rfc2633 Peter Gutmann
- RE: Request change in son-of-rfc2633 Peter Gutmann
- RE: Request change in son-of-rfc2633 Russ Housley
- RE: Request change in son-of-rfc2633 Peter Gutmann
- Re: Request change in son-of-rfc2633 Steve Hanna
- RE: Request change in son-of-rfc2633 Santosh Chokhani
- Re: Request change in son-of-rfc2633 Peter Gutmann
- Re: Request change in son-of-rfc2633 Peter Gutmann