Re: [TLS] OCSP must staple

"Salz, Rich" <rsalz@akamai.com> Mon, 09 June 2014 01:51 UTC

Return-Path: <rsalz@akamai.com>
X-Original-To: tls@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tls@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6367D1A026C for <tls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 8 Jun 2014 18:51:52 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.851
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.851 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.651] autolearn=ham
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 tdhQWUMcjf6O for <tls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 8 Jun 2014 18:51:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from prod-mail-xrelay02.akamai.com (prod-mail-xrelay02.akamai.com [72.246.2.14]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EE1831A01E2 for <tls@ietf.org>; Sun, 8 Jun 2014 18:51:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from prod-mail-xrelay02.akamai.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by postfix.imss70 (Postfix) with ESMTP id F00C92876B; Mon, 9 Jun 2014 01:51:47 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from prod-mail-relay07.akamai.com (prod-mail-relay07.akamai.com [172.17.121.112]) by prod-mail-xrelay02.akamai.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DA9AE28769; Mon, 9 Jun 2014 01:51:47 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from usma1ex-cashub.kendall.corp.akamai.com (usma1ex-cashub4.kendall.corp.akamai.com [172.27.105.20]) by prod-mail-relay07.akamai.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A15258003C; Mon, 9 Jun 2014 01:51:47 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from USMBX1.msg.corp.akamai.com ([172.27.107.26]) by USMA1EX-CASHUB4.kendall.corp.akamai.com ([172.27.105.20]) with mapi; Sun, 8 Jun 2014 21:51:47 -0400
From: "Salz, Rich" <rsalz@akamai.com>
To: Jeremy Rowley <jeremy.rowley@digicert.com>, "tls@ietf.org" <tls@ietf.org>
Date: Sun, 8 Jun 2014 21:51:46 -0400
Thread-Topic: [TLS] OCSP must staple
Thread-Index: AQJxv6HtmB9uk8Yt5wEeFHdRD1knoQEt2WjqAP+sMUYCHog9/QJH2PNTApX9AA0COSwKkwNalKqnAp4CcngB5F3w/QJ8kG4OAaygmc2ZZtBTsIABcG7Q
Message-ID: <2A0EFB9C05D0164E98F19BB0AF3708C7130F434FB5@USMBX1.msg.corp.akamai.com>
References: <097101cf7aa7$17f960a0$47ec21e0$@digicert.com> <4AA8E7B7-A19D-4E65-AF18-C4D02A513652@ieca.com> <538EF79B.3000506@cs.tcd.ie> <CAMm+LwgTnva9jJgVfkaOZ1qP0Rk3w-mFfepnubosgtrCEARv=g@mail.gmail.com> <539069CC.5010304@cs.tcd.ie> <CAFewVt4p4rJ738Yo=XQm6T_jyvG3TnJsSQ5HDZDrqAkyNDa7tg@mail.gmail.com> <20140605173223.GK27883@mournblade.imrryr.org> <20140607164945.GA23329@roeckx.be> <20140607170619.GC27883@mournblade.imrryr.org> <2A0EFB9C05D0164E98F19BB0AF3708C7130F434F7A@USMBX1.msg.corp.akamai.com> <20140607184737.GD27883@mournblade.imrryr.org> <2A0EFB9C05D0164E98F19BB0AF3708C7130F434F7D@USMBX1.msg.corp.akamai.com> <155f01cf82ce$7cfa8360$76ef8a20$@digicert.com>
In-Reply-To: <155f01cf82ce$7cfa8360$76ef8a20$@digicert.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/k1SdPj47ynfn2CxnCAueqZ8Otlw
Subject: Re: [TLS] OCSP must staple
X-BeenThere: tls@ietf.org
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." <tls.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/tls>, <mailto:tls-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Mon, 09 Jun 2014 01:51:52 -0000

> Any standard "trusts" that the implementers will do the right thing. 

I don't recall any uptime requirements in any OCSP-related specs.

> We already have people interested in using must staple upon adoption so this shouldn't be a factor in the adopting the draft.

That's interesting you have customers interested in I, and that point is as valid as mine saying I don't think our customers will be.  But I didn't say it to forestall adoption of the draft, sorry if I gave you that impression.

> Non-compliance by certain CAs is really irrelevant to whether OCSP Must Staple should be adopted as a standard.

I didn't say that, either :)  I was just describing what I saw as a bigger issue. And yes, it's completely orthogonal to OCSP; sorry if I wasn't clear.

	/r$

--  
Principal Security Engineer
Akamai Technologies, Cambridge, MA
IM: rsalz@jabber.me; Twitter: RichSalz