Re: [stir] Constraining count

Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com> Thu, 13 April 2017 13:46 UTC

Return-Path: <housley@vigilsec.com>
X-Original-To: stir@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: stir@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5032A129469 for <stir@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 13 Apr 2017 06:46:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, 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 XfBKOzlLgMjd for <stir@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 13 Apr 2017 06:46:38 -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 90B4B120724 for <stir@ietf.org>; Thu, 13 Apr 2017 06:46:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.smeinc.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id E7A1A3004A5 for <stir@ietf.org>; Thu, 13 Apr 2017 09:46:37 -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 Up8VU_L-_6Wq for <stir@ietf.org>; Thu, 13 Apr 2017 09:46:31 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from a860b60074bd.home (pool-108-45-101-150.washdc.fios.verizon.net [108.45.101.150]) by mail.smeinc.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id AEF5130042F; Thu, 13 Apr 2017 09:46:31 -0400 (EDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.3 \(3273\))
From: Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com>
In-Reply-To: <A956D446-A375-422A-88E0-69F4AF7E0821@sn3rd.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2017 09:46:32 -0400
Cc: IETF STIR Mail List <stir@ietf.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <7E0D6FF6-1E8B-40D2-8014-A8D21687ED78@vigilsec.com>
References: <A956D446-A375-422A-88E0-69F4AF7E0821@sn3rd.com>
To: Sean Turner <sean@sn3rd.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3273)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/stir/BQFwqjc0AkN6w9pgvooA378uBJI>
Subject: Re: [stir] Constraining count
X-BeenThere: stir@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: Secure Telephone Identity Revisited <stir.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/stir>, <mailto:stir-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/stir/>
List-Post: <mailto:stir@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:stir-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/stir>, <mailto:stir-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2017 13:46:40 -0000

I support his change.  It eliminates the ambiguity that range could be used with a count of one.

Russ


> On Apr 12, 2017, at 6:57 PM, Sean Turner <sean@sn3rd.com> wrote:
> 
> In one of the threads Russ suggested that we constrain the number of TNs in a range to be greater than two.  I haven’t seen much discussion on this so I went ahead and created an issue:
>  https://github.com/stirwg/certificates/issues/3
> and a PR to address the issue:
>  https://github.com/stirwg/certificates/pull/6/files
> 
> What do people think?  Personally, this change makes sense to me; it’s providing instructions to the compiler with no bits-on-the-wire changes.
> 
> spt
> _______________________________________________
> stir mailing list
> stir@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/stir