IETF Logo Mail Archive

RE: Request change in son-of-rfc2633

"Blake Ramsdell" <blake@brutesquadlabs.com> Tue, 28 October 2003 23:57 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 SAA08879 for <smime-archive@lists.ietf.org>; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 18:57:51 -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 h9SMiAI7010031 for <ietf-smime-bks@above.proper.com>; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 14:44:10 -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 h9SMiA9G010030 for ietf-smime-bks; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 14:44:10 -0800 (PST)
X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-smime@mail.imc.org using -f
Received: from brutesquadlabs.com (gtec136-m.isomedia.com [207.115.67.136] (may be forged)) by above.proper.com (8.12.10/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h9SMi9I7010023 for <ietf-smime@imc.org>; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 14:44:10 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from blake@brutesquadlabs.com)
Received: from DEXTER ([192.168.0.12]) by brutesquadlabs.com with ESMTP ; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 14:44:05 -0800
From: Blake Ramsdell <blake@brutesquadlabs.com>
To: 'Russ Housley' <housley@vigilsec.com>, 'Peter Gutmann' <pgut001@cs.auckland.ac.nz>, jimsch@exmsft.com, pgut001@cs.auckland.ac.nz
Cc: ietf-smime@imc.org
Subject: RE: Request change in son-of-rfc2633
Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2003 14:44:05 -0800
Message-ID: <!~!UENERkVCMDkAAQACAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABgAAAAAAAAARMPfbnbp50SwK3EZjypY2MKAAAAQAAAAX5o9pEwQa0KGdC7kIB1KTgEAAAAA@brutesquadlabs.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.2627
In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.2.20031028084138.02012898@mail.binhost.com>
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165
Importance: Normal
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>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Russ Housley [mailto:housley@vigilsec.com] 
> Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2003 5:47 AM
> To: Peter Gutmann; blake@brutesquadlabs.com; 
> jimsch@exmsft.com; pgut001@cs.auckland.ac.nz
> Cc: ietf-smime@imc.org
> Subject: RE: Request change in son-of-rfc2633
> 
> 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.

I think that the direction that's on the table is to clarify that
lookups by SubjectKeyIdentifier may yield more than one certificate, and
implementations should be prepared for that and not freak out and panic
the user.

Blake

v2.29.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status