Re: [lamps] Draft LAMPS Recharter

On Wed, May 2, 2018 at 2:06 PM, Ryan Sleevi <ryan-ietf@sleevi.com> wrote:

>
>
> On Wed, May 2, 2018 at 10:41 AM, Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Based on the discussion in London and the "Potential Topics for LAMPS
>> Recharter" mail thread.  We propose the attached charter text.  Please
>> review and comment.
>>
>> Russ & Tim
>>
>> = = = = = = = = =
>>
>> 3. Specify the use of short-lived X.509 certificates for which no
>> revocation information is made available by the Certification Authority.
>> Short-lived certificates have a lifespan that is shorter than the time
>> needed to detect, report, and distribute revocation information, as a
>> result revoking them pointless.
>>
>
> I didn't see much discussion on the list in support for this, but
> apologies, I missed the discussion in SECDISPATCH when this draft was
> discussed.
>
> Is this being envisioned for the use in the PKI typically called the "Web
> PKI", or is this being seen as a draft for private use cases? I have read
> the draft, and do not feel this was clearly and unambiguously answered.
>
> I ask because, for various policy reasons, I would expect that undertaking
> this work may result in policies that explicitly prohibit it from being
> deployed on the Web PKI.
>

Ryan,

Do you think you could elaborate on this point?

Thanks,
-Ekr

> As a practical matter, the draft acknowledges an alternative design
> (namely, OCSP stapling), but its two objections to this work do not hold.
> As a consequence, I have concerns about the motivations for and the
> alternatives considered, and thus don't think LAMPS needs to consider such
> work in scope at this time.
>

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