Re: [lamps] Revocation Request Format?

[Phillip Hallam-Baker <[e-mail]>]

On Sat, Mar 3, 2018 at 1:29 AM, Stephen Farrell <[e-mail]>
wrote:

>
>
> 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:-)
>

​At this point, the incident that motivated this proposal happened 4 days
ago. So it would probably be a mistake to bang out a draft and promote it
to RFC.​

​What I was most interested to know is if we had done the work already and
the answer appears to be not in PKIX​ but possibly in ACME. It might just
be that all we need to do is to add a few paragraphs to ACME and maybe get
an IANA content type for whatever the standalone message blob is.


I do think we will need to standardize because we are almost certain to
want to pop these blobs in our CT logs at some point and it is in any case
the right thing to do. One code path is always better than five code paths
offering the same functionality.