IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [TLS] OCSP status_request_v2 extension

Benjamin Kaduk <bkaduk@akamai.com> Tue, 15 August 2017 17:42 UTC

Return-Path: <bkaduk@akamai.com>
X-Original-To: tls@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tls@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 761E5124207 for <tls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 15 Aug 2017 10:42:35 -0700 (PDT)
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, HTML_MESSAGE=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=akamai.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 qOtwhEBgSWGK for <tls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 15 Aug 2017 10:42:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx0a-00190b01.pphosted.com (mx0a-00190b01.pphosted.com [IPv6:2620:100:9001:583::1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 06F28120713 for <tls@ietf.org>; Tue, 15 Aug 2017 10:42:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pps.filterd (m0050095.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by m0050095.ppops.net-00190b01. (8.16.0.21/8.16.0.21) with SMTP id v7FHgWcT010474; Tue, 15 Aug 2017 18:42:32 +0100
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=akamai.com; h=subject : to : cc : references : from : message-id : date : mime-version : in-reply-to : content-type; s=jan2016.eng; bh=85xT0pSF3t+wVRfV5f6NkY2CyMjG1/1oULPtjrJXXaY=; b=XMwdgXBlygaPPgIShYzlIynuCpAcRXlThgWrUs71TMcqL3zK3UBiHgCf9Y/yq8ayQlAG KdlWLGI682WKmvZgci51q+K2xZFoIB6x2dkrMOWxfyOduwsbSHxzR2IPrqmgRwMeWVCU kHQvaFApQZGjAunDy7hkw4jpcNX04cyKpxWcIJhkgk1Snu6AeUVRzmEn4LoWxhsDPkaB WqGhFkDCWtuG5zecE2QM9lvRlHXhQ1iHj2Hsd+5kyOhqoIvR7ejhlVJnKkb7Z11AcHsT Ybi9J0HBds4MwjjTiYHRuNJf40qZ5g/oltyKNvy8ao1iUUYm2n27ZcA2XEbKW9DAdGsb MQ==
Received: from prod-mail-ppoint2 (prod-mail-ppoint2.akamai.com [184.51.33.19]) by m0050095.ppops.net-00190b01. with ESMTP id 2c9s6ywha7-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Tue, 15 Aug 2017 18:42:32 +0100
Received: from pps.filterd (prod-mail-ppoint2.akamai.com [127.0.0.1]) by prod-mail-ppoint2.akamai.com (8.16.0.17/8.16.0.17) with SMTP id v7FHeYG7029528; Tue, 15 Aug 2017 13:42:31 -0400
Received: from prod-mail-relay11.akamai.com ([172.27.118.250]) by prod-mail-ppoint2.akamai.com with ESMTP id 2c9w0v3ggx-1; Tue, 15 Aug 2017 13:42:31 -0400
Received: from [172.19.17.86] (bos-lpczi.kendall.corp.akamai.com [172.19.17.86]) by prod-mail-relay11.akamai.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D1CEF1FC7B; Tue, 15 Aug 2017 17:42:30 +0000 (GMT)
To: Ilari Liusvaara <ilariliusvaara@welho.com>, Hubert Kario <hkario@redhat.com>
Cc: "tls@ietf.org" <tls@ietf.org>
References: <1743998.0aoAkZaxpO@pintsize.usersys.redhat.com> <20170814182616.46cnqvpk3kmh4led@LK-Perkele-VII>
From: Benjamin Kaduk <bkaduk@akamai.com>
Message-ID: <f5a566c6-f5d2-e1dc-67ec-301182111ab6@akamai.com>
Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2017 12:42:30 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.2.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20170814182616.46cnqvpk3kmh4led@LK-Perkele-VII>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------92A2B0C428AE1AB70A6C9A78"
Content-Language: en-US
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10432:, , definitions=2017-08-15_13:, , signatures=0
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 spamscore=0 suspectscore=0 malwarescore=0 phishscore=0 adultscore=0 bulkscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1706020000 definitions=main-1708150297
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10432:, , definitions=2017-08-15_13:, , signatures=0
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 priorityscore=1501 malwarescore=0 suspectscore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 clxscore=1011 lowpriorityscore=0 impostorscore=0 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1706020000 definitions=main-1708150297
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/QwUXzyWzHzYRKfN-3R6xkm3Atfg>
Subject: Re: [TLS] OCSP status_request_v2 extension
X-BeenThere: tls@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: "This is the mailing list for the Transport Layer Security working group of the IETF." <tls.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/tls>, <mailto:tls-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/tls/>
List-Post: <mailto:tls@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tls-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls>, <mailto:tls-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2017 17:42:35 -0000

On 08/14/2017 01:26 PM, Ilari Liusvaara wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 14, 2017 at 08:03:08PM +0200, Hubert Kario wrote:
>> Current (21) draft references RFC 6961 in multiple places, in particular
>>  * Section 4.4.2:
>>      Valid extensions
>>      include OCSP Status extensions ([RFC6066] and [RFC6961])
>>  * and therein implicitly:
>>      If
>>      an extension applies to the entire chain, it SHOULD be included in
>>      the first CertificateEntry.
>>
>> at the same time section B.3.1 ExtensionType and table from Section 4.2 do not 
>> list status_request_v2 as a valid extension.
>>
>>
>> If the intention was to deprecate status_request_v2, I think the references to 
>> RFC 6961 should be a bit more cautious. If it wasn't (as old messages sent to 
>> the list would indicate), quite a bit of text is missing.
> The introduction suggests that TLS 1.3 intends to deprecate
> status_request_v2.
>

Yes, the intention was to deprecate status_request_v2.

-Ben

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email