IETF Logo Mail Archive

[lamps] draft-housley-lamps-norevavail-00

Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com> Thu, 18 May 2023 21:23 UTC

Return-Path: <housley@vigilsec.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 7455DC151074 for <spasm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 18 May 2023 14:23:37 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.896
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.896 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] 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 U1lJz5F0705k for <spasm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 18 May 2023 14:23:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail3.g24.pair.com (mail3.g24.pair.com [66.39.134.11]) (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 06B9CC14CE2E for <spasm@ietf.org>; Thu, 18 May 2023 14:23:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail3.g24.pair.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail3.g24.pair.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E1BB0EF8CB; Thu, 18 May 2023 17:23:31 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.161] (unknown [96.241.2.243]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail3.g24.pair.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id CCBFBEF901; Thu, 18 May 2023 17:23:31 -0400 (EDT)
From: Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_BB3919B5-D496-42D6-8CB4-F86F7F3E8AE4"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.21\))
Date: Thu, 18 May 2023 17:23:31 -0400
References: <168444309553.24047.14923062710269229403@ietfa.amsl.com>
Cc: Joe Mandel <Joe.Mandel@secureg.io>, Tomofumi Okubo <tomofumi.okubo@gmail.com>
To: LAMPS <spasm@ietf.org>
Message-Id: <E2BE1DCD-A241-4DDF-A5EC-DD3209C4CDA2@vigilsec.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.21)
X-Scanned-By: mailmunge 3.11 on 66.39.134.11
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spasm/TavHTD_8mhBe4YBRkwmh7aLhyHE>
Subject: [lamps] draft-housley-lamps-norevavail-00
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: Thu, 18 May 2023 21:23:37 -0000

I want the LAMPS WG to be aware of this I-D.  However, I do not think we should adopt it until the event predicted in the History section actually comes to pass:

   With greater use of short-lived certificates in the Internet, the
   next revision of ITU-T Recommendation X.509 [X.509-TBD] is expected
   to allow the noRevAvail certificate extension to be used with public
   key certificates as well as attribute certificates.

Russ


> From: internet-drafts@ietf.org <mailto:internet-drafts@ietf.org>
> Subject: New Version Notification for draft-housley-lamps-norevavail-00.txt
> Date: May 18, 2023 at 4:51:35 PM EDT
> To: "Joseph Mandel" <joe.mandel@secureg.io <mailto:joe.mandel@secureg.io>>, "Russ Housley" <housley@vigilsec.com <mailto:housley@vigilsec.com>>, "Tomofumi Okubo" <tomofumi.okubo+ietf@gmail.com <mailto:tomofumi.okubo+ietf@gmail.com>>
> 
> 
> A new version of I-D, draft-housley-lamps-norevavail-00.txt
> has been successfully submitted by Russ Housley and posted to the
> IETF repository.
> 
> Name:		draft-housley-lamps-norevavail
> Revision:	00
> Title:		No Revocation Available for Short-lived X.509 Certificates
> Document date:	2023-05-18
> Group:		Individual Submission
> Pages:		8
> URL:            https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-housley-lamps-norevavail-00.txt <https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-housley-lamps-norevavail-00.txt>
> Status:         https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-housley-lamps-norevavail/ <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-housley-lamps-norevavail/>
> Html:           https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-housley-lamps-norevavail-00.html <https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-housley-lamps-norevavail-00.html>
> Htmlized:       https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-housley-lamps-norevavail <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-housley-lamps-norevavail>
> 
> 
> Abstract:
>   Short-lived X.509v3 public key certificates as profiled in RFC 5280
>   are seeing greater use in the Internet.  The Certification Authority
>   (CA) that issues these short-lived certificates do not publish
>   revocation information because the certificate lifespan that is
>   shorter than the time needed to detect, report, and distribute
>   revocation information.  This specification defines the noRevAvail
>   certificate extension so that a relying party can readily determine
>   that the CA does not publish revocation information for the
>   certificate.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email