IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [stir] Questions about stir-certificates

Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com> Fri, 10 November 2017 23:33 UTC

Return-Path: <martin.thomson@gmail.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 D719C1274D0 for <stir@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 10 Nov 2017 15:33:07 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.7
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 8A-zG0AuyIgy for <stir@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 10 Nov 2017 15:33:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-oi0-x22f.google.com (mail-oi0-x22f.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c06::22f]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 829D81272E1 for <stir@ietf.org>; Fri, 10 Nov 2017 15:33:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-oi0-x22f.google.com with SMTP id v9so7876269oif.13 for <stir@ietf.org>; Fri, 10 Nov 2017 15:33:06 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=s5PffB2iTNRBEyfNfOj/spcp62/WQJDBF+hgwYni4xk=; b=GPJBggCFAEA1me3ywUXyZuAAGriCOMhmA8Kxj75JdYmDY5I3cD2FONIhCaXEbUigXH 8KjzDFBxCcO/RbP0SQIURn4iKi4C00nk++uXoLtlgZoDtDamB5oOyc0/X4ZOGEntbiWE +DVaMVsnwkTo/9bvFaEfDlC//8UYhSF8j1bZ1Dky3eWbmp/91paXU909wY9pvbiq9bVr yk9DiOy5tiwSbPKad/Z4GNKS0JQi+hf6Y/4++cAuY0m9g4VP1c8+tQzOu6pKc8FCjR4v Fc3WKPrM0wdsfJsVP9pTUOYsYwcDzFSIwHIfTm7CZb3xBDblCvK8BzkUfwGHtwQNOG5V dmtw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=s5PffB2iTNRBEyfNfOj/spcp62/WQJDBF+hgwYni4xk=; b=oEbh1nAChbPeDNkMlsIZ6fn3R8g9nq06wx7/QzCr8+oSEcc70T/B5QcW1OlcFitXpJ kvviYJb+c70YAV7kfkaw++TnXLrWQsi80YIlqkeJIcDBEObubg+/rqQy12GF3bsqZtFV SvMlFgi9HhAL5hqzn2yrLB3kIfYJpfH74Se/Ifs3lQO7zV0o80MFgoYWiv7s21Q6SCGI r+Sqj7/Ggai4W+4gLJl+2139pkX/F0GhDTR6JgHXfeFeycSR39NCw1+JCWaygbzqsfso TtIJCyYRTx6CddymAd50NMs/8ucFi4mjVH2AIMX+kaKp2Hl6I799W4fBQgSHCu5wQbE+ 1XWA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AJaThX4woS6YzhMSRs9YnB98Z0ie6TVFtxeuTwXuLXxApfyE8JUkyZ2w XS70bB/0iMWW4re+Er9E+nRlwMBB3A72/Ukzm8+E5A==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGs4zMbWFdfa60/dUXZx8Aqx9x1MT8gGcuyFIn+ImJ1ChS6n44/Mtf9S7b/S8Wa7lww019EY6c4D/RDAdhkPwMMTn3s=
X-Received: by 10.202.225.130 with SMTP id y124mr1187466oig.88.1510356785831; Fri, 10 Nov 2017 15:33:05 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.157.8.11 with HTTP; Fri, 10 Nov 2017 15:33:05 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <5398BEAA-B532-4F4D-980C-43F6FB3584A8@sn3rd.com>
References: <D60E0087.1EEE44%jon.peterson@neustar.biz> <CABkgnnV41djmwJ2A8WkLv1Qu_zxAKPb8EJnuoFS1Zeog3momyQ@mail.gmail.com> <E4972898-9912-456F-92E5-1A6022B26A85@sn3rd.com> <CABkgnnUNmwT_-atKHzOATOJ4SPhsC1+Gy0Q_6XLtGo7owgE-kQ@mail.gmail.com> <5398BEAA-B532-4F4D-980C-43F6FB3584A8@sn3rd.com>
From: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2017 10:33:05 +1100
Message-ID: <CABkgnnWELeCBYUSOtado9FHjZEM6qj0GTYfrd6TYcDorYLZVwA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Sean Turner <sean@sn3rd.com>
Cc: "Peterson, Jon" <jon.peterson@team.neustar>, "stir@ietf.org" <stir@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/stir/mcAJWVQz1b3Ru1PgLnOfOAYr614>
Subject: Re: [stir] Questions about stir-certificates
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: Fri, 10 Nov 2017 23:33:08 -0000

Only one comment (you got the rest).

On Fri, Nov 10, 2017 at 8:25 AM, Sean Turner <sean@sn3rd.com> wrote:
>> Having the two match might not make sense if you consider the
>> possibility for an operator to run their own subordinate CA.  I think
>> that it would be reasonable for that CA to be constrained to the set
>> of numbers that operator has, but if the EE cert has to match exactly
>> it would prevent the operator from creating more narrowly constrained
>> EE certs.
>
> Ah here I wasn’t talking about the constraints themselves.  I was referring to the mechanism used, i.e., if the CA constrains with AIA the signer needs to also use an AIA, and vice versa.

The *same* AIA?

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email