Re: [TLS] Update spec to match current practices for certificate chain order

Peter Gutmann <> Thu, 07 May 2015 05:50 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8FED31ACED3 for <>; Wed, 6 May 2015 22:50:26 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.91
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.91 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Maby55XR_HYi for <>; Wed, 6 May 2015 22:50:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EEBAA1ACEBA for <>; Wed, 6 May 2015 22:50:21 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple;;; q=dns/txt; s=uoa; t=1430977822; x=1462513822; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:references:in-reply-to: content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=O2ac2s3b/Sof9FV19JnouYoCGn1AVErnJvbFdy44FZg=; b=aa5JzTver1sfieOAuw20Y0W4gN3RZSqo8KDt4LpVt8+8Z6+YJkAm5EVn Mhx6iWfxB/D9+Gye+t47kGNB67uCDB7RrdNwLhcEAMB9dx8N8FwaY+LOq dm0Q5VhhqGIlrOHPnkqrIy6T+wSNHmh/NXQGmfTn39qoa5Rghuj/p6G1o E=;
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.13,383,1427713200"; d="scan'208";a="3488872"
X-Ironport-Source: - Outgoing - Outgoing
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTP/TLS/AES128-SHA; 07 May 2015 17:50:19 +1200
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 14.03.0174.001; Thu, 7 May 2015 17:50:19 +1200
From: Peter Gutmann <>
To: Dave Garrett <>, "" <>
Thread-Topic: [TLS] Update spec to match current practices for certificate chain order
Thread-Index: AQHQiHPHQz9aLKupu0CRDqxaUS0n3p1wAj1n
Date: Thu, 7 May 2015 05:50:18 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-NZ, en-GB, en-US
Content-Language: en-NZ
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [TLS] Update spec to match current practices for certificate chain order
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Thu, 07 May 2015 05:50:26 -0000

Dave Garrett <> writes:

>I'd like to propose simply changing that second "MUST" to a "SHOULD" or
>possibly even a "RECOMMENDED", thus allowing for clients to accept cert
>chains in different orderings as they already seem to do. (no change proposed
>for the first "MUST")

I suspect the first MUST can go as well, particularly if you're using code
that handles cert chains in other formats like CMS/PKCS #7, where the "chain"
can contain any old rubbish and the chain-assembly code has to build the path.
For example my code looks for a cert containing the site name 
("") and then builds a chain up via the parent links until it
can't find any more useful certs.  That just works no matter what the other
side sends.