Re: [lamps] [CMP Updates] position of hashAlg in certStatus

Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com> Sun, 05 September 2021 20:45 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 656A33A08B1 for <spasm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 5 Sep 2021 13:45:04 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.898
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.898 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=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 vfTfCIDi1V9S for <spasm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 5 Sep 2021 13:44:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.smeinc.net (mail.smeinc.net [209.135.209.11]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 109983A08AF for <spasm@ietf.org>; Sun, 5 Sep 2021 13:44:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.smeinc.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id CF213300BFA for <spasm@ietf.org>; Sun, 5 Sep 2021 16:44:58 -0400 (EDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at mail.smeinc.net
Received: from mail.smeinc.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mail.smeinc.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10026) with ESMTP id z7ZPb9tiK_1I for <spasm@ietf.org>; Sun, 5 Sep 2021 16:44:57 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from a860b60074bd.fios-router.home (pool-141-156-161-153.washdc.fios.verizon.net [141.156.161.153]) by mail.smeinc.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 696E43002A6; Sun, 5 Sep 2021 16:44:57 -0400 (EDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.21\))
From: Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com>
In-Reply-To: <25dfec13-5c60-406f-7dbe-150f547ccc90@von-Oheimb.de>
Date: Sun, 5 Sep 2021 16:44:55 -0400
Cc: SPASM <spasm@ietf.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <6C6CE04A-1740-4AAC-959E-D56C3C680139@vigilsec.com>
References: <92DF4EC6-4075-4ED2-8106-048072A26C6F@vigilsec.com> <E0F9FA03-0512-4C93-9992-80E93EDB2DF5@redhoundsoftware.com> <25dfec13-5c60-406f-7dbe-150f547ccc90@von-Oheimb.de>
To: David von Oheimb <nl0@von-Oheimb.de>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.21)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spasm/TcXy0x8UJ2FPbRmWNAn88yGOyrI>
Subject: Re: [lamps] [CMP Updates] position of hashAlg in certStatus
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: Sun, 05 Sep 2021 20:45:05 -0000

David:

>> Option 1 and 2 are both fine to me.  As I already said, I have a slight preference for option 2.  That is because the new field is at the end.
> I know you wrote that, but this does not explain why in your view it would be (in total) slightly better to have the new field at the end,
> although, as I just wrote again, it has the disadvantage that the fields are not in logical order. 
> In other words: what do you see as the advantage(s) overweighing the mentioned disadvantage?

I understand the situation.  I mildly prefer the new field at the end, but I am file with Options 1 and 2.

Russ