IETF Logo Mail Archive

[TLS] OCSP status_request_v2 extension

Hubert Kario <hkario@redhat.com> Mon, 14 August 2017 18:03 UTC

Return-Path: <hkario@redhat.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 E45D41323CA for <tls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 14 Aug 2017 11:03:16 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 q9fbEiq4lRgE for <tls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 14 Aug 2017 11:03:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx1.redhat.com (mx1.redhat.com [209.132.183.28]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 286D31323C9 for <tls@ietf.org>; Mon, 14 Aug 2017 11:03:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx05.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.15]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C43A919D018 for <tls@ietf.org>; Mon, 14 Aug 2017 18:03:14 +0000 (UTC)
DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mx1.redhat.com C43A919D018
Authentication-Results: ext-mx05.extmail.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com
Authentication-Results: ext-mx05.extmail.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com; spf=fail smtp.mailfrom=hkario@redhat.com
Received: from pintsize.usersys.redhat.com (unknown [10.43.21.223]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 923445D6A4 for <tls@ietf.org>; Mon, 14 Aug 2017 18:03:14 +0000 (UTC)
From: Hubert Kario <hkario@redhat.com>
To: "tls@ietf.org" <tls@ietf.org>
Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2017 20:03:08 +0200
Message-ID: <1743998.0aoAkZaxpO@pintsize.usersys.redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="nextPart1667039.Z2HyZ8NY0u"; micalg="pgp-sha512"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.79 on 10.5.11.15
X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.5.16 (mx1.redhat.com [10.5.110.29]); Mon, 14 Aug 2017 18:03:14 +0000 (UTC)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/sEQcUcJl5ALVIoCw_wqjSJPJEqc>
Subject: [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: Mon, 14 Aug 2017 18:03:17 -0000

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.
-- 
Regards,
Hubert Kario
Senior Quality Engineer, QE BaseOS Security team
Web: www.cz.redhat.com
Red Hat Czech s.r.o., Purkyňova 115, 612 00  Brno, Czech Republic

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email