[lamps] rfc7030 CSR clarification ideas
Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Wed, 27 October 2021 23:26 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 888093A085A for <spasm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 27 Oct 2021 16:26:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ootyMILEJBAp for <spasm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 27 Oct 2021 16:26:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.19]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 12F373A0856 for <spasm@ietf.org>; Wed, 27 Oct 2021 16:26:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0EEEB18022 for <spasm@ietf.org>; Wed, 27 Oct 2021 19:27:31 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id SAgKSef10xPi for <spasm@ietf.org>; Wed, 27 Oct 2021 19:27:30 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.21]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 929061801B for <spasm@ietf.org>; Wed, 27 Oct 2021 19:27:30 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id A4B7C585 for <spasm@ietf.org>; Wed, 27 Oct 2021 19:26:22 -0400 (EDT)
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 26.1
X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m<nPbLgmtKK-5dC@#:k
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg="pgp-sha512"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2021 19:26:22 -0400
Message-ID: <27097.1635377182@localhost>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spasm/Dx7RYAXB7fbnc9eJV2zaVOVtzcc>
Subject: [lamps] rfc7030 CSR clarification ideas
X-BeenThere: spasm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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, 27 Oct 2021 23:26:30 -0000
Subsequent to posting draft-richardson-lamps-rfc7030-csrattrs-01 on Monday, David has clarified a few options with commit: https://github.com/mcr/lamps-rfc7030-csrattrs/commit/01f6949b880dd6269d5e886113486d056a42ebc1 in a number of the proposals, an explicit "Name" field is included in the attributes. My understanding from RFC5280, is that the SubjectAltName is an extension and it is not contained with a "Name" object. In particular, section 4.2.1.6 of RFC5280 says: GeneralName ::= CHOICE { otherName [0] OtherName, rfc822Name [1] IA5String, dNSName [2] IA5String, x400Address [3] ORAddress, directoryName [4] Name, so in fact a "Name" is allowed inside a SubjectAltName, and not the other way around. Pretty much all of the cases where we think that a Registrar needs to specify a name to the client, it's some kind of SubjectAltName. Often rfc822Name or otherName (in the case of RFC8994/ACP). So I think that we could consider all the options that David and others have proposed, if we included a GeneralName rather than a Name? Are there use cases (particularly given draft-ietf-uta-rfc6125bis-03 aka draft-ietf-uta-use-san aka draft-rsalz-use-san) where we actually will need to specify the SubjectDN... GOING FORWARD? -- Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca> . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting ) Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide
- [lamps] rfc7030 CSR clarification ideas Michael Richardson
- Re: [lamps] rfc7030 CSR clarification ideas Russ Housley