IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [lamps] Follow-up on draft-ietf-lamps-8410-ku-clarifications

Sean Turner <sean@sn3rd.com> Wed, 22 June 2022 15:51 UTC

Return-Path: <sean@sn3rd.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 5C4BAC14F749 for <spasm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 22 Jun 2022 08:51:17 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.109
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.109 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=sn3rd.com
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 Z5pzUo6bCYWc for <spasm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 22 Jun 2022 08:51:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qk1-x734.google.com (mail-qk1-x734.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::734]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 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 45A47C14F729 for <spasm@ietf.org>; Wed, 22 Jun 2022 08:51:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qk1-x734.google.com with SMTP id p63so12822288qkd.10 for <spasm@ietf.org>; Wed, 22 Jun 2022 08:51:13 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sn3rd.com; s=google; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=wtFjHE1GHezsJfQt19IcC6Oj/CPN5NqtKKwyKqzKmew=; b=FC1bjfI5jp5tGWUjKhmIUStr30hvz20hrBmO8JjJjgnMxaspysc3A3Eh+hCYDWwdIm syZF5KjBFisfhx8rW7MMIOmE8L3PJZINYGssQxChFLM9dv48nQ+tvcrGKh04WgRz11UP RrjfqYqVURG3omt7RPtoS+9Hz4wHR7B/S+PC4=
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=wtFjHE1GHezsJfQt19IcC6Oj/CPN5NqtKKwyKqzKmew=; b=3bMIsk0/YCgY2772plWeYGs6e9tleZ7I61PA74x6omZ/a7n0Ejh3zi7vn6BbL9310u Wh+e2xkgk7YS5AeXojL9hHf7fjE+XN4KRrJadxaPyOsPM07lbza8jEUyXUIv8/TG85A+ L385/JP4+/H1sJt6kXipuY49eTaw1BnlPRaXW519Cd6WN3A/co0HGripWNFPspuRwhNp snFbndrGcdoFZ0NDK2NI4RV4E3v/4zmyegZfRGys6LVXWgWNBhGJRoPWm4QPO63J5VdZ S5ycakHwTVLSdTE948H/8WX6GSBt61xhA2Ej3MHFeJXeyfcCxpVUIw11j0pLolXb4EGc JORg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AJIora8r/FcFfCOTs4XuC1a7PqKFTfOxF0y+mtnbKdDzEKFvfrgJK+OB wTdPil6EWltaB/Z+YfZ6GZF2YXLihhH9oA==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGRyM1vpg45xlEFoZr4DmMIFO4thqPm0O9dYsMoEcmL0f0QeU40U1pB05MWD97u3d+R4HbooBYCumA==
X-Received: by 2002:a05:620a:271a:b0:6ab:bbaf:a761 with SMTP id b26-20020a05620a271a00b006abbbafa761mr2927217qkp.584.1655913071895; Wed, 22 Jun 2022 08:51:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtpclient.apple ([2600:4040:253b:7300:6170:f601:4906:eb67]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id w20-20020a05622a135400b00305030cabfcsm15571987qtk.38.2022.06.22.08.51.10 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 22 Jun 2022 08:51:11 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 14.0 \(3654.120.0.1.13\))
From: Sean Turner <sean@sn3rd.com>
In-Reply-To: <AF8A8FFA-0C4C-450F-8E02-5B88E51F26FA@vigilsec.com>
Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2022 11:51:08 -0400
Cc: Roman Danyliw <rdd@cert.org>, LAMPS <spasm@ietf.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <BE68923B-75FE-440B-B600-59AC07884B7D@sn3rd.com>
References: <BN2P110MB1107D350AD287ACC01F0FD72DCA79@BN2P110MB1107.NAMP110.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM> <BN2P110MB1107184DFADD0B9647505ABFDCA79@BN2P110MB1107.NAMP110.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM> <4118E20C-F3A9-49C4-8206-B25FA188471B@sn3rd.com> <AF8A8FFA-0C4C-450F-8E02-5B88E51F26FA@vigilsec.com>
To: Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3654.120.0.1.13)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spasm/hye54R1GhZSrpAhqv270fvnQoeQ>
Subject: Re: [lamps] Follow-up on draft-ietf-lamps-8410-ku-clarifications
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: Wed, 22 Jun 2022 15:51:17 -0000


> On Jun 22, 2022, at 11:05, Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
>> On Jun 22, 2022, at 10:46 AM, Sean Turner <sean@sn3rd.com> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> On Jun 9, 2022, at 12:24, Roman Danyliw <rdd@cert.org> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Hi!
>>> 
>>> draft-ietf-lamps-8410-ku-clarifications got a few COMMENTS during IESG review.  I wanted to check-in on Paul's COMMENT about errata on RFC8410.
>>> 
>>> ** This document acknowledges and resolves https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid5696.  Thanks.
>>> 
>>> ** These errata were previously flagged as hold for document update, and this is an update.  What do we want to do?
>> 
>> I did not include the following in this update because they were not specifically about the topic I was interested in addressing.
>> 
>> They could be incorporated into -ku-clarifications, but then we start to go down the slope of -cmp-update where -ku-clarifications is about more than just ku clarifications. And, we end up doing a bis. Is that the ask here - respin as a bis?
>> 
>>> -- https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid5459
>>> -- https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid5707
>>> 
>>> ** There are also the following reported errata against RFC8410.  What do we want to do with them?
>> 
>> The following are reference-related or example related so I tend to lean HFDU.
>> 
>>> -- https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid6229
>> 
>> 6229 should be verified or HFDU: I agree with reasoning laid out in the errata.
>> 
>>> -- https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid6263
>> 
>> 6263 should be verified or HFDU: OneAsymmetricKey is in RFC 5958.
>> 
>>> -- https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid6936
>> 
>> 6936 should be verified or HFDU: If you are going to include BasisConstraints in an EE certificate it’s an empty SEQUENCE (or so I have seen).
> 
> Given the IESG reaction to cmp-update, it seems that addressing these would need to result in a bis document.  That said, these do not look difficult to address.
> 
> Russ

Agreed they are not hard to fix, but they were beyond what I was looking to address.

spt

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email