IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [lamps] RFC8994/8995 requirements for CSRattr

Dan Harkins <dharkins@lounge.org> Mon, 30 August 2021 07:35 UTC

Return-Path: <dharkins@lounge.org>
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 AC3263A1812; Mon, 30 Aug 2021 00:35:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, NICE_REPLY_A=-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 JdUvabjG3aZp; Mon, 30 Aug 2021 00:35:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from www.goatley.com (www.goatley.com [198.137.202.94]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6EC723A180F; Mon, 30 Aug 2021 00:35:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from trixy.bergandi.net (cpe-76-176-14-122.san.res.rr.com [76.176.14.122]) by wwwlocal.goatley.com (PMDF V6.8 #2433) with ESMTP id <0QYN0KZ9I6F8UI@wwwlocal.goatley.com>; Mon, 30 Aug 2021 02:35:32 -0500 (CDT)
Received: from blockhead.local ([69.12.173.8]) by trixy.bergandi.net (PMDF V6.7-x01 #2433) with ESMTPSA id <0QYN00A6M68LH1@trixy.bergandi.net>; Mon, 30 Aug 2021 00:31:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from 69-12-173-8.static.dsltransport.net ([69.12.173.8] EXTERNAL) (EHLO blockhead.local) with TLS/SSL by trixy.bergandi.net ([10.0.42.18]) (PreciseMail V3.3); Mon, 30 Aug 2021 00:31:33 -0700
Date: Mon, 30 Aug 2021 00:35:30 -0700
From: Dan Harkins <dharkins@lounge.org>
In-reply-to: <13498.1630308106@localhost>
To: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
Cc: anima@ietf.org, Owen Friel <ofriel@cisco.com>, Peter van der Stok <stokcons@bbhmail.nl>, max pritikin <pritikin@cisco.com>, Toerless Eckert <tte@cs.fau.de>, Esko Dijk <esko.dijk@iotconsultancy.nl>, spasm@ietf.org, Thomas Werner <thomas-werner@siemens.com>
Message-id: <0a744c63-464b-9801-2a46-9853af1efb0c@lounge.org>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-language: en-US
Content-transfer-encoding: 8bit
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.13.0
X-PMAS-SPF: SPF check skipped for authenticated session (recv=trixy.bergandi.net, send-ip=69.12.173.8)
X-PMAS-External-Auth: 69-12-173-8.static.dsltransport.net [69.12.173.8] (EHLO blockhead.local)
References: <26149.1630260692@localhost> <1dec22e1-3856-4df7-21d6-4ad6c94e0ee2@lounge.org> <13498.1630308106@localhost>
X-PMAS-Software: PreciseMail V3.3 [210826] (trixy.bergandi.net)
X-PMAS-Allowed: system rule (rule allow header:X-PMAS-External noexists)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spasm/ItKPD7An0caWoDx6f4ixOV5N66I>
Subject: Re: [lamps] RFC8994/8995 requirements for CSRattr
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: Mon, 30 Aug 2021 07:35:37 -0000


On 8/30/21 12:21 AM, Michael Richardson wrote:
> Dan Harkins <dharkins@lounge.org> wrote:
>      >   Why can't the RA signal to the CA whatever things it things should
>      > be included in the CA, in addition to the goo provided in the client's
>
> I don't know. Why can't it?  What protocol can it use that is well deployed?

   The RA can do that signalling. You just need to define the protocol.

>      >   Why don't you want to define _that_ signalling instead of overloading
>      > a different protocol?
>
> I'd love to define that protocol.
> But, we thought CSRattrs was that protocol.

   Why did you think that? I can see a "it's there and we can tweak it 
to do this
weird thing we want to do" but I don't understand why one would think 
that CSRattrs
was designed for that.

   If the RA knows what information the CA needs in order to construct a 
certificate
then it should just tell the CA.

   Dan.

-- 
"The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to
escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." -- Marcus Aurelius

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email