[lamps] CSRattr: is new OID in correct arc?
Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Mon, 06 November 2023 08:43 UTC
Return-Path: <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
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 100A8C17DC07 for <spasm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 6 Nov 2023 00:43:30 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.909
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.909 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 Ji1_pm4w5u_1 for <spasm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 6 Nov 2023 00:43:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: from relay.sandelman.ca (relay.cooperix.net [176.58.120.209]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 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 EC93EC17DC03 for <spasm@ietf.org>; Mon, 6 Nov 2023 00:43:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from dyas.sandelman.ca (unknown [IPv6:2001:67c:370:128:8721:e92:68cc:5ea7]) by relay.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A42081F45A for <spasm@ietf.org>; Mon, 6 Nov 2023 08:43:25 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by dyas.sandelman.ca (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 36561A1B60; Mon, 6 Nov 2023 03:43:23 -0500 (EST)
Received: from dyas (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dyas.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 343D0A1B59 for <spasm@ietf.org>; Mon, 6 Nov 2023 09:43:23 +0100 (CET)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: spasm@ietf.org
X-Attribution: mcr
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6+git; nmh 1.7+dev; GNU Emacs 26.3
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg="pgp-sha512"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Mon, 06 Nov 2023 09:43:23 +0100
Message-ID: <3512329.1699260203@dyas>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spasm/COMtgiebVNR_ZEA93crs5vZdpxs>
Subject: [lamps] CSRattr: is new OID in correct arc?
X-BeenThere: spasm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: This is the mail list for the LAMPS Working Group <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: Mon, 06 Nov 2023 08:43:30 -0000
In draft-ietf-lamps-rfc7030-csrattrs-07 We are asking for a new OID in:
id-aa-certificationRequestInfoTemplate OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= {
iso(1) member-body(2) us(840) rsadsi(113549) pkcs(1) pkcs9(9)
smime(16) aa(2) TBD }
Sean's similar, but not exactly equivalent RFC8295, Appendix B used:
pkcs-9-at-pkcs7PDU OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= {
iso(1) member-body(2) us(840) rsadsi(113549) pkcs(1) pkcs9(9)
pkcs-9-at(25) 5
}
And we wondered why smime, and if we should be using an OID from another arc?
--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>, Sandelman Software Works
-= IPv6 IoT consulting =- *I*LIKE*TRAINS*
- [lamps] CSRattr: is new OID in correct arc? Michael Richardson
- Re: [lamps] CSRattr: is new OID in correct arc? Russ Housley
- Re: [lamps] CSRattr: is new OID in correct arc? Michael Richardson