Re: [lamps] Revocation Request Format?

Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie> Sat, 03 March 2018 06:29 UTC

Return-Path: <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
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 C15D512EABD for <spasm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 2 Mar 2018 22:29:40 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.311
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.311 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cs.tcd.ie
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 kY1pGC2AeNIt for <spasm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 2 Mar 2018 22:29:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mercury.scss.tcd.ie (mercury.scss.tcd.ie [134.226.56.6]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 613C2126C19 for <SPASM@ietf.org>; Fri, 2 Mar 2018 22:29:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mercury.scss.tcd.ie (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8FBF2BE79; Sat, 3 Mar 2018 06:29:34 +0000 (GMT)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at scss.tcd.ie
Received: from mercury.scss.tcd.ie ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mercury.scss.tcd.ie [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id jjZiKHa9AfJs; Sat, 3 Mar 2018 06:29:33 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from [172.18.242.162] (w193-11-200-249.eduroam.sunet.se [193.11.200.249]) by mercury.scss.tcd.ie (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 13AC0BE5F; Sat, 3 Mar 2018 06:29:33 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cs.tcd.ie; s=mail; t=1520058573; bh=v+X+O+eg3+SKtzV+LDYT0Q0HfJKU0hhf3hucFCOyk3I=; h=Subject:To:Cc:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=bsYiqzXwDWgNSsJoK9qvrNyRSWGTMusTO3dd8p3S99ioQIV8H8yCdnD0HtckIuFhh gZBmSxsx6f2CtKVRX/ldBXHXJu0EQmBsfWq5iuSF+x29W59SjSjEg6pahtyKCyL/g6 oIh1ZcR4942nXxgPO4C0D6PunmakJNG4DvO6kWvs=
To: Ryan Sleevi <ryan-ietf@sleevi.com>
Cc: SPASM <SPASM@ietf.org>, Phillip Hallam-Baker <phill@hallambaker.com>, Peter Bowen <pzbowen@gmail.com>
References: <CAMm+LwjAP78hNL9Yaxqaf4K9RHYGk4M8ayJjCWt=F3_VN28cFQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAErg=HEK0aJm+Xb06px=vmfpyESetdRpe2x=q+Wca=9J8nErmw@mail.gmail.com> <CAK6vND8p55yNVoXO6_eJs1ooodVBAFZovJ84ou6uj_4qHt5DGA@mail.gmail.com> <CAMm+LwjKKqaG+OjSw3KaSvwymy6mvvyEDx1sMp2EGqXqvPSdjA@mail.gmail.com> <CAErg=HFBWaSV5-mJCBO8fLP3esfnseiqqJ_Fh1x78BW9=P-kUQ@mail.gmail.com> <26f237b9-bbe6-6efe-2a43-394d44e8334c@cs.tcd.ie> <CAErg=HH+B5+DcvPfUixy-3egm3zdhGjMangtAL0wixKE5PVkzw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
Openpgp: id=5BB5A6EA5765D2C5863CAE275AB2FAF17B172BEA; url=
Message-ID: <62156108-02c7-054e-1311-855636e3fb52@cs.tcd.ie>
Date: Sat, 3 Mar 2018 06:29:30 +0000
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAErg=HH+B5+DcvPfUixy-3egm3zdhGjMangtAL0wixKE5PVkzw@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="Y5wF5rlHnJKRpEegdH7fJOIYfExEP0gWJ"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spasm/d9xhwz1-4RyslG1geks4M-cwPxI>
Subject: Re: [lamps] Revocation Request Format?
X-BeenThere: spasm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: Sat, 03 Mar 2018 06:29:41 -0000


On 02/03/18 22:33, Ryan Sleevi wrote:
> That's why I think an effort to standardize there is bad, not good, because
> it counterintuitively fragments the ecosystem, without addressing the
> general issue, which is in my view is moreso a matter of policy, because of
> the inherent constraints of 2).

FWIW, I don't agree with your conclusion that *any* standardisation
of revocation signals would be counter-productive, but I also don't
think we ought do any such standardisation unless there are a bunch
of CAs and writers of private key handling s/w who do in fact want
to use the same new format for revocation signalling. I don't see a
whole bunch of CAs and others wanting that right now.

So in the short term, I think we agree as to what to (not) do:-)

Cheers,
S.