IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [lamps] draft-ietf-lamps-cmp-updates section 3.8 using pkcs-9-at-localKeyId containing a revocation passphrase hint

Jim Schaad <ietf@augustcellars.com> Wed, 06 May 2020 17:11 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf@augustcellars.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 476C53A0844 for <spasm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 6 May 2020 10:11:46 -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, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 S57Ys3QOJ_z6 for <spasm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 6 May 2020 10:11:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail2.augustcellars.com (augustcellars.com [50.45.239.150]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6C0E13A0842 for <spasm@ietf.org>; Wed, 6 May 2020 10:11:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from Jude (73.180.8.170) by mail2.augustcellars.com (192.168.0.56) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1395.4; Wed, 6 May 2020 10:11:33 -0700
From: Jim Schaad <ietf@augustcellars.com>
To: "'Brockhaus, Hendrik'" <hendrik.brockhaus@siemens.com>, 'LAMPS WG' <spasm@ietf.org>
CC: steffen.fries@siemens.com
References: <AM0PR10MB2402173DFBD40DFF043AE839FEA40@AM0PR10MB2402.EURPRD10.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
In-Reply-To: <AM0PR10MB2402173DFBD40DFF043AE839FEA40@AM0PR10MB2402.EURPRD10.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
Date: Wed, 06 May 2020 10:11:30 -0700
Message-ID: <040401d623c9$64fa1d00$2eee5700$@augustcellars.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0405_01D6238E.B89B9320"
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 16.0
Thread-Index: AQE4vfJ6kT+ggo2MKd1BIQ0zK6OTSqnWFcIA
Content-Language: en-us
X-Originating-IP: [73.180.8.170]
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spasm/pmIa8OhqiscMqnRLKem87N4-Css>
Subject: Re: [lamps] draft-ietf-lamps-cmp-updates section 3.8 using pkcs-9-at-localKeyId containing a revocation passphrase hint
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: Wed, 06 May 2020 17:11:47 -0000

I would generally prefer the use of pkcs-9-at-localKeyId due to the fact
that it is an OCTET STRING.  I don't like the use of BMPString for much of
anything.  The only worry that I have is this is not being used according to
the description as this is not "locally in applications".  I would interpret
this as not leaving the local machine.  

 

Jim

 

 

From: Brockhaus, Hendrik <hendrik.brockhaus@siemens.com> 
Sent: Wednesday, May 6, 2020 2:43 AM
To: LAMPS WG <spasm@ietf.org>; Jim Schaad <ietf@augustcellars.com>
Cc: steffen.fries@siemens.com
Subject: draft-ietf-lamps-cmp-updates section 3.8 using pkcs-9-at-localKeyId
containing a revocation passphrase hint

 

During IETF 107 we discussed whether to use pkcs-9-at-friendlyName or
pkcs-9-at-localKeyId as specified in RFC 2985 section 5.5 in envelopedData
to transport an identifier for the revocation passphrase.

The WG seemed to prefer the localKeyId.

 

@Jim, did you manage to take a look on this and do you have a different
opinion?

 

-- Hendrik

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email