Re: [TLS] CertficateRequest extension encoding

David Benjamin <> Fri, 23 September 2016 01:26 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 103D412BDC5 for <>; Thu, 22 Sep 2016 18:26:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.315
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.315 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-2.316, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id L0T3S2maiqjf for <>; Thu, 22 Sep 2016 18:26:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c06::229]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F2C9012BD39 for <>; Thu, 22 Sep 2016 18:26:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id e66so14445904iod.1 for <>; Thu, 22 Sep 2016 18:26:15 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=google; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=zB8SP3UpB/EIN3Z5vZhBI+xPtcRboM1q+B5bfoWNw8g=; b=JUn8Uc25i5wE19Mr9yLKMn1vVebM/PGRPXD9gq8MgyRBQJtcuO1a2xrfmQqnoiQdo/ eCHmpzQEoWn8heudEKnJmnYHW6Tt+YCC8rJICtW6/X+aJnqD9QsZ93hVjXMTTwAro6tS m8sKuL3vNN+neFsTTYRK+qXwVs7Jaoum8AXFY=
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to; bh=zB8SP3UpB/EIN3Z5vZhBI+xPtcRboM1q+B5bfoWNw8g=; b=H9brnvWy2yA9msnviuyfNhz3SMy9iumyuYXR3cVO/9T7ACpNxwM9dx8byWWPWDM1Fy /lVRIqI8TKq9blgG1XyE1bJUwg2GwcwyK6ld1QK95JWKhkuJyhEFRT6Khrq0HXa6Ozo0 CREUfznF0snrJBpLAG5zGagk5RT+hN4NGfABzd8sPbxtY/zTU5/Br3+DSijJdcR7MQxa Z3PQsmdrxeHFO6DYm8VGLRBAKLq2DhHNjCv7fC1RS8ydlM8i8Feuo0kWS0HP93h/eBxV sZ2gC+vfsrmy4qw3WXJRyBz87Xqp38mFNDoPe57xArQ+m08MtR8BdoDfPwlSgvgJzxnV loRg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AE9vXwNYqIwRy/AxH4pdsdx5Tk4zc9XzGMJrEobxCWXCJi2HetxMASREfTHALEyDNysWFvTLnNOrw6xl4l2R69zC
X-Received: by with SMTP id a71mr6259449ioe.120.1474593974943; Thu, 22 Sep 2016 18:26:14 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
From: David Benjamin <>
Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2016 01:26:03 +0000
Message-ID: <>
To: Andrei Popov <>, Anders Rundgren <>, Peter Gutmann <>, Ilari Liusvaara <>, "" <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a1140e882110644053d22aafd"
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [TLS] CertficateRequest extension encoding
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: "This is the mailing list for the Transport Layer Security working group of the IETF." <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2016 01:26:22 -0000

On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 1:03 PM Andrei Popov <>

> But it's OID-specific how the matching works, isn't it?
Correct, and initially we define matching for KU and EKU. These are the
OIDs I've got the most customer requests for. I expect that we will want to
define matching rules for other OIDs over time, in separate specs. This new
proposal allows multiple sets of matching rules for each OID, which
certainly increases flexibility.

David, do you care enough to write your proposal down as a PR, so that we
can discuss the specifics?

Apologies for the delay. Been a busy few weeks. This is roughly what I was

What do you think?

Again, I don't actually care about this, so if you and others who would use
this mechanism prefer it as it is, I have no qualms. This is a "pull
suggestion", not a "pull request". :-)




-----Original Message-----
From: Anders Rundgren []
Sent: Tuesday, September 6, 2016 8:36 AM
To: Peter Gutmann <>; David Benjamin <>; Andrei Popov <>; Ilari
Liusvaara <>;
Subject: Re: [TLS] CertficateRequest extension encoding

On 2016-09-06 16:15, Peter Gutmann wrote:
> David Benjamin <> writes:
>> Either way I imagine our stack will just keep on ignoring it, so I
>> don't feel about this all too strongly. But the topic came up so I
>> thought I'd suggest this.
> I ignore it too.  Client certs are so rare, and so painful to deploy,
> that I'm not going to make things harder on users by adding complex
> and opaque filtering to prevent them from working.  My approach is to
> specify as few constraints as possible, the client submits whatever
> certificate it has, and it's then decided based on a whitelist for
> which the server can very clearly report "not on the whitelist" when
> it rejects it.  The design seems to be based on the idea that each
> client has a smorgasbord of certs and the server can specify in
> precise detail in advance which one it wants, when in reality each
> client has approximately zero certs, and the few that do have one just
want the one they've got to work.

May I add some nuances here?

Client-certificates are *extensively* used for secure box-to-box
Existing selection methods suffice (there's usually none on the client

Client-certificates for user authentication on the Web through HTTPS is a
small and diminishing activity. The decision by the browser vendors
dropping support for on-line enrollment is likely to further limit this use
case which make improvements in selection/filtering pretty uninteresting.

Client-certificates for user authentication on the Web through through
proprietary ("FIDO like") application level protocols is fairly big.  Half
of the Swedish population use such a scheme for e-government and bank
access.  It uses an ugly (and non-secure) OOB-method to make it "Web
compatible".  This use-case is (of course) not of an issue for the TLS WG
but may be of some interest for people currently using client certificates
for Web authentication.


> Peter.
> _______________________________________________
> TLS mailing list