Re: [stir] Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-ietf-stir-enhance-rfc8226-03: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Russ Housley <> Tue, 29 June 2021 13:52 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id C38983A3506 for <>; Tue, 29 Jun 2021 06:52:10 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.898
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.898 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id BPqUTt6pE417 for <>; Tue, 29 Jun 2021 06:52:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6C3543A3505 for <>; Tue, 29 Jun 2021 06:52:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id C3B8D300BF3 for <>; Tue, 29 Jun 2021 09:52:07 -0400 (EDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10026) with ESMTP id T7u3mAPYEyjE for <>; Tue, 29 Jun 2021 09:52:01 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from a860b60074bd.fios-router.home ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4C6E23001A8; Tue, 29 Jun 2021 09:52:01 -0400 (EDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.21\))
From: Russ Housley <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2021 09:52:00 -0400
Cc: IESG <>, IETF STIR Mail List <>, Robert Sparks <>, Ben Campbell <>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <>
References: <> <> <>
To: Ben Kaduk <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.21)
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [stir] Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-ietf-stir-enhance-rfc8226-03: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Secure Telephone Identity Revisited <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2021 13:52:11 -0000


>> For now, just responding to the DISCUSS ...
>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> Let's discuss whether we should have content in this document discussing
>>> the relationship between this new certificate extension and the
>>> extension defined by RFC 8226.  In paticular, whether it is
>>> permitted/expected for both extensions to appear in the same
>>> certificate, and whether any specific processing is required in that
>>> case.  (If no such processing is specified, we could end up with
>>> interesting edge cases where a given PASSporT is handled differently
>>> depending on which extension(s) are supported by the recipient.)
>> I see no reason why both extensions would ever appear in the same certificate.
> There was an open question for me about backwards compatibility...
>> If there is a mustExclude, then the constraints cannot be expressed in the extension defined in RFC 8226, so I would only expect the on in this document to be present.
> ... specifically, if the desired constraints include both mustExclude and
> one of the preexisting restrictions, does "something is better than
> nothing" apply when the recipient might not implement the new extension,
> prompting a desire to include both extensions so that the recipient will
> apply those constraints it does know about?

No.  It is important that all of the constraints are met for the use cases where mustExclude come into play.

> If there is a desire to provide this backwards compatibility, is it better
> to duplicate the constraint in both extensions or rely on both extensions
> being processed and only put mustExclude in the new extension?  If the
> latter, why do we bother allowing the mustInclude and permittedValues forms
> in the new extension?

Indeed,  If that were the case, I think a different design would be preferable.

>> If there is not a mustExclude, the the constraints can be expressed in either extension equally well, so I would expect only the extension defined in RFC 8226, with the presumption that it is implemented more widely.
>> I can add this advice to the document if it resolves your concern.
> I think at least the last bit makes sense to mention in this document.  I'm
> still not entirely clear on the full picture, though.

I'll craft some text to address this, and then I will turn to your other comments.