From lvalenta@cloudflare.com Fri Apr 2 13:59:34 2021 Return-Path: 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 D07F73A2387 for ; Fri, 2 Apr 2021 13:59:34 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.099 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.099 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_MED=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cloudflare.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 TwMi5UZcbEtB for ; Fri, 2 Apr 2021 13:59:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-oo1-xc34.google.com (mail-oo1-xc34.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::c34]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F267A3A2384 for ; Fri, 2 Apr 2021 13:59:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-oo1-xc34.google.com with SMTP id q127-20020a4a33850000b02901b646aa81b1so1536520ooq.8 for ; Fri, 02 Apr 2021 13:59:29 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cloudflare.com; s=google; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=JUgUM+f/B/UoVzbreX55jigEQiaPbhRKJQ9owaj3Gbo=; b=bZeR7eXFxaj9Nz9MLjdjrGU3GNt3VNrYUK9AoNCCU+DVpkP1a3ATWauU1kknNyuFaY J01J6QYPJWE8orFPQ3Ebb84fj63fjbMjOjhBIpYz/c/oAOO1H1O5lQx5dKnC2pkFxMZZ nHNc4R7Z18MrE53hK8msuCPtQY0FDGkf73634= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=JUgUM+f/B/UoVzbreX55jigEQiaPbhRKJQ9owaj3Gbo=; b=ECbA6fnmT2Q+Dm0Vgz7rK3CDpxtCAPGfqyqBJyjee4FbXyyiy7ysWq6AK1DLgg3qG4 EX+ugAe2zYUl9cOeYCygdvjL5Z58W9965uyZAEY7tzEnkrKjmvNElY2OkxBqS3ElthBf UwT9dEnrougXdBZ/DKtjenG2+MxfKJ82QQh9kb7VP1GfbsA4U6XGyJGI1oXdX3ow2zK4 G1p/rGqEHF4yXVlW3iLbxbk7bjY85RQvjQs6JArZe874hz3u9gd7w6qJZEQbBi6ZIYII YssWMZ1j9PnJobyYAnqyH7wwH4R/k4D9OTIOpROrOOKVVEKnLyDdK4TJM5exzrNumGU6 dRCA== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530X0dBeh7HU+PsQdogXIC9Nn08qcdknatVCyPlbeGNhmKT+eXML 2YvJ+NDXN8DzsEEIYXxPJMly6TN4f2rWyJQvXkPcArmp4Bn6hQ== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyfTkawE1dEuR3xDgph97R5eog7EFkpVZ2Aj4BoelwfS5pPgZIZ3chOb3vlPva9ZA7RUwPd3M7ZGYzV42Doho0= X-Received: by 2002:a4a:244d:: with SMTP id v13mr13334643oov.66.1617397168154; Fri, 02 Apr 2021 13:59:28 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 From: Luke Valenta Date: Fri, 2 Apr 2021 15:59:17 -0500 Message-ID: To: tls@ietf.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000ab4a5505bf039f37" Archived-At: Subject: [TLS] Clarification of valid_time validation checks in tls-subcerts document X-BeenThere: tls@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 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, 02 Apr 2021 21:00:39 -0000 --000000000000ab4a5505bf039f37 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Hi folks, I have a PR at https://github.com/tlswg/tls-subcerts/pull/83 to clarify some text in the tls-subcert document regarding client-side validation with respect to valid_time. Below is a quick summary of the changes: - Clarify in valid_time definition that validation happens with respect to the current time (Rich Salz made a similar suggestion at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/026iVah93ZXZ02pUq3thyjlhnSs/) - Correct and clarify client-side validation steps described at https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-tls-subcerts-10#section-4.1.3; Step 1 and 3 were previously incorrect or ambiguous, and step 2 has been clarified. Please take a look and leave comments if you have any! -- Luke Valenta Systems Engineer - Research --000000000000ab4a5505bf039f37 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi folks,

I have a PR at https://github.com/tlswg/tls-su= bcerts/pull/83 to clarify some text in the tls-subcert document regardi= ng client-side validation with respect to valid_time.

=
Below is a quick summary of the changes:
- Clarify in valid_= time definition that validation happens with respect to the current time (R= ich Salz made a similar suggestion at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/= arch/msg/tls/026iVah93ZXZ02pUq3thyjlhnSs/)
- Correct and clar= ify client-side validation steps described at https://tools.ietf.org/= html/draft-ietf-tls-subcerts-10#section-4.1.3; Step 1 and 3 were previo= usly incorrect or ambiguous, and step 2 has been clarified.

<= /div>
Please take a look and leave comments if you have any!
<= div>

--
= Luke Valenta
Systems Engi= neer - Research
--000000000000ab4a5505bf039f37--