[TLS] rfc4366-bis-03 Discuss #2: hash alg. agility for TrustedCA?

[Alfred Hönes <[e-mail]>]

(A)  hash algorithm agility for the Trusted CA Keys TLS extension

Section 5 of the rfc4366-bis draft contains the following
TLS presentation language definition (from RFC 4366):

---------------------------snip----------------------
      struct {
          TrustedAuthority trusted_authorities_list<0..2^16-1>;
      } TrustedAuthorities;

      struct {
          IdentifierType identifier_type;
          select (identifier_type) {
!             case pre_agreed: struct {};
!             case key_sha1_hash: SHA1Hash;
!             case x509_name: DistinguishedName;
!             case cert_sha1_hash: SHA1Hash;
          } identifier;
      } TrustedAuthority;

      enum {
!         pre_agreed(0), key_sha1_hash(1), x509_name(2),
!         cert_sha1_hash(3), (255)
      } IdentifierType;

      opaque DistinguishedName<1..2^16-1>;
---------------------------snip----------------------

where SHA1Hash is borrowed form Section 5:

---------------------------snip----------------------
      opaque SHA1Hash[20];
---------------------------snip----------------------

This WG is tasked by the IESG & IAB to introduce crypto algorithm
agility into the protocols it supports, whereas the above definition
is still restricted to SHA-1 only.

Therefore, the questions arise:

-  Should the enum IdentifierType be extended with new values
   indicating other hashes for keys and certificates?

-  If yes, adding only SHA-256 (in the spirit of TLS v1.2),
   or adding more variants?


Any opinions?  Further considerations?


(B)  Non-uniqueness of x509_name in Trusted CA Keys TLS extension

The 3rd-to-last paragraph of Section 6 in the -03 version
of the rfc4366-bis draft states:

!  Note also that it is possible that a key hash or a Distinguished Name
!  alone may not uniquely identify a certificate issuer (for example, if
!  a particular CA has multiple key pairs). However, here we assume this
!  is the case following the use of Distinguished Names to identify
!  certificate issuers in TLS.

It seems rather unlikely that this non-uniqueness happens for
a key hash.

But in the course of rekeying or when multiple signature algorithms
(RSA/DSA/ECDSA) are supported by a CA, this non-uniqueness could be
expected to happen rather commonly for x509_name.

-  Is the above quoted assumption still justified?

-  If not, should another common identifier type,
   IssuerAndSerialNumber,
   be introduced to help avoid the ambiguity?
 -or-
-  Does everybody use hashes anyway, such that deprecating
   the x509_name variant might be considered ?

Any opinions?  Further considerations?


Kind regards,
  Alfred.

-- 

+------------------------+--------------------------------------------+
| TR-Sys Alfred Hoenes   |  Alfred Hoenes   Dipl.-Math., Dipl.-Phys.  |
| Gerlinger Strasse 12   |  Phone: [phone], Fax: -18         |
| D-71254  Ditzingen     |  E-Mail:  [e-mail]                     |
+------------------------+--------------------------------------------+

_______________________________________________
TLS mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls