IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [lamps] Follow-up on draft-ietf-lamps-8410-ku-clarifications

Sean Turner <sean@sn3rd.com> Wed, 22 June 2022 14:46 UTC

Return-Path: <sean@sn3rd.com>
X-Original-To: spasm@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: spasm@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E2CD5C15948F for <spasm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 22 Jun 2022 07:46:59 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.105
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.105 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=sn3rd.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 2mmbKOy-2zYU for <spasm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 22 Jun 2022 07:46:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qk1-x72a.google.com (mail-qk1-x72a.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::72a]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1860EC15948A for <spasm@ietf.org>; Wed, 22 Jun 2022 07:46:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qk1-x72a.google.com with SMTP id k10so1847829qke.9 for <spasm@ietf.org>; Wed, 22 Jun 2022 07:46:54 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sn3rd.com; s=google; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=BDDXfllIaPVvz+f59gAPxUtFkX6S8P2LH/9EWyoe2Po=; b=mHZvVvCJAyEowfUyc76FOtO7OXvjnOvgK205cHR2THgBkqpFK8OIpFF5XqrznxkXbF dtV6pTF7jy1WTuADBZjkuokihcOAmhqu2whUM3usm8yhQFbhJnRzWi9ceaILG6BEqcjz /lWeS92HOZW/KeTPO6gSRB1X79ex0wWALspvE=
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=BDDXfllIaPVvz+f59gAPxUtFkX6S8P2LH/9EWyoe2Po=; b=5hgf8ZRClHd4/sSOZyF48z1jcRIefSUAGinxQH6UUY9OoO3qDRYPVKl6y5zlA9GdJ7 r0ULLXDR2NbuXozanWbdtOaGf5VD6+7hF6pijDW7Ykz8vee+FsLT4xKsw0rojGz2BkYa 1QSM1jPlTuhIWQp0bVJFoGIPldnhmfu6pBLJ0lvgentsGrVT/eI8eVldnWAWt8pnCrrs q1LLqqcQh8efY7eAgaUhaEqGC/aFemCv/n+gqPUf7Ckuyt7rToH0o7AC8xgS731VABXE WhnKZhoquGQfToHsfdLFrvJOScvpBd/y3iWHmd3wmU+s7oSdHqIx2XcXC2FOI9AxrGfI rztw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AJIora+dSrtBlvVdx7dYUuntZFrML/6HjK86c7x1EQmwk3bf5aADX51k 5Gs2xNFvHQRR6ydIoq2nOv/qLFk9pYq7Bg==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGRyM1vUsgEALnmYIHgvOPWkJSo0LihL7j8t/ambqC1lYVKpRrQh2QDIPWEsJ3M5axG2jOKATiApEg==
X-Received: by 2002:ae9:e11a:0:b0:6a6:af6b:fd76 with SMTP id g26-20020ae9e11a000000b006a6af6bfd76mr2637512qkm.356.1655909213427; Wed, 22 Jun 2022 07:46:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtpclient.apple ([2600:4040:253b:7300:6170:f601:4906:eb67]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id l5-20020a37f505000000b006a73654c19bsm15940621qkk.23.2022.06.22.07.46.52 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 22 Jun 2022 07:46:52 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 14.0 \(3654.120.0.1.13\))
From: Sean Turner <sean@sn3rd.com>
In-Reply-To: <BN2P110MB1107184DFADD0B9647505ABFDCA79@BN2P110MB1107.NAMP110.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2022 10:46:50 -0400
Cc: "spasm@ietf.org" <spasm@ietf.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <4118E20C-F3A9-49C4-8206-B25FA188471B@sn3rd.com>
References: <BN2P110MB1107D350AD287ACC01F0FD72DCA79@BN2P110MB1107.NAMP110.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM> <BN2P110MB1107184DFADD0B9647505ABFDCA79@BN2P110MB1107.NAMP110.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
To: Roman Danyliw <rdd@cert.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3654.120.0.1.13)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spasm/0If49SzC8lLsnOn8IfA3obC_JUA>
Subject: Re: [lamps] Follow-up on draft-ietf-lamps-8410-ku-clarifications
X-BeenThere: spasm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: "This is a venue for discussion of doing Some Pkix And SMime \(spasm\) work." <spasm.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/spasm>, <mailto:spasm-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/spasm/>
List-Post: <mailto:spasm@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:spasm-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spasm>, <mailto:spasm-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2022 14:47:00 -0000


> On Jun 9, 2022, at 12:24, Roman Danyliw <rdd@cert.org> wrote:
> 
> Hi!
> 
> draft-ietf-lamps-8410-ku-clarifications got a few COMMENTS during IESG review.  I wanted to check-in on Paul's COMMENT about errata on RFC8410.
> 
> ** This document acknowledges and resolves https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid5696.  Thanks.
> 
> ** These errata were previously flagged as hold for document update, and this is an update.  What do we want to do?

I did not include the following in this update because they were not specifically about the topic I was interested in addressing.

They could be incorporated into -ku-clarifications, but then we start to go down the slope of -cmp-update where -ku-clarifications is about more than just ku clarifications. And, we end up doing a bis. Is that the ask here - respin as a bis?

> -- https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid5459
> -- https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid5707
> 
> ** There are also the following reported errata against RFC8410.  What do we want to do with them?

The following are reference-related or example related so I tend to lean HFDU.

> -- https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid6229

6229 should be verified or HFDU: I agree with reasoning laid out in the errata.

> -- https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid6263

6263 should be verified or HFDU: OneAsymmetricKey is in RFC 5958.

> -- https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid6936

6936 should be verified or HFDU: If you are going to include BasisConstraints in an EE certificate it’s an empty SEQUENCE (or so I have seen).

Cheers,
spt

> Thanks,
> Roman
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Spasm mailing list
> Spasm@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spasm

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email