IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Trans] Draft agenda

Tomas Gustavsson <tomas@primekey.se> Wed, 26 February 2014 14:14 UTC

Return-Path: <tomas@primekey.se>
X-Original-To: trans@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: trans@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4F2F51A0363 for <trans@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 26 Feb 2014 06:14:02 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.097
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.097 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, HELO_EQ_SE=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.547] 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 BeGqcSXETrz9 for <trans@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 26 Feb 2014 06:13:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.primekey.se (mail.primekey.se [213.179.18.11]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E0E4E1A040C for <trans@ietf.org>; Wed, 26 Feb 2014 06:13:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.primekey.se (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.primekey.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6655445C00A9 for <trans@ietf.org>; Wed, 26 Feb 2014 15:15:10 +0100 (CET)
Received: from [192.168.1.107] (c-50-184-94-125.hsd1.ca.comcast.net [50.184.94.125]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.primekey.se (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id EF52A45C00A3 for <trans@ietf.org>; Wed, 26 Feb 2014 15:15:09 +0100 (CET)
Message-ID: <530DF69F.3050706@primekey.se>
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2014 06:13:51 -0800
From: Tomas Gustavsson <tomas@primekey.se>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.3.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: trans@ietf.org
References: <53063600.4020102@gmail.com> <CALzYgEe0XrQdKDZN3_dwFLnM87+TXyYRMzj4ZGe5xKi-T_5V+g@mail.gmail.com> <530B86F6.5040201@gmail.com> <CABrd9SSpyw4nJ9t7X0WDeN+1MnhD+__-QXLOQXYs=h2JCUrwDg@mail.gmail.com> <CAMm+Lwj4XniVS_n+M3TmT_LM+P6H6HGgcnhMezUjnupKXzwwdg@mail.gmail.com> <CABrd9STabJA4Fp75HfC7ORR1LQZT+q0DDuB61O0JGBOt31cpmQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAMm+LwgT8MEG+Svr3zmMYYPrQNEXwtNPL0m7CjYFHKUAKKbfFQ@mail.gmail.com> <CABrd9STQQ69cPo3F5c22__aGbPAKV3AXnTFB47yd3s7+SQOpww@mail.gmail.com> <530DD6BC.8080207@comodo.com> <CABrd9SSX9XFqQK+UBdvai-ACLkPT6mudXsjYmh-cGOp-P62vog@mail.gmail.com> <530DDF7D.4040206@comodo.com> <CF334A3B.11C9F%carl@redhoundsoftware.com> <530DEC04.30401@comodo.com> <CF33566E.11CC6%carl@redhoundsoftware.com> <530DF034.2000907@comodo.com>
In-Reply-To: <530DF034.2000907@comodo.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="EUC-KR"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV using ClamSMTP
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/trans/01RhlA0mB5SLw68g2tZcEub9DSY
Subject: Re: [Trans] Draft agenda
X-BeenThere: trans@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Public Notary Transparency working group discussion list <trans.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/trans>, <mailto:trans-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/trans/>
List-Post: <mailto:trans@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:trans-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/trans>, <mailto:trans-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2014 14:14:02 -0000

Did anyone consider using RFC4211 CRMF requests as "pre-certificates"?
CRMF has both issuer and serialNumber, as well as extensions. The
CertTemplate of RFC4211 is basically a TBSCertificate.

Cheers,
Tomas

PS: time to change subject of the thread?


On 02/26/2014 05:46 AM, Rob Stradling wrote:
> On 26/02/14 13:33, Carl Wallace wrote:
>>>>
>>>> While I agree that lack of a CA certificate with the matching naming
>>>> really doesn¹t matter, breaking name chaining seems like an odd way to
>>>> maintain ³ritual compliance".  Why not bump the version number instead?
>>>> v4 could be defined as a pre-certificate containing a poison extension
>>>> and
>>>> a serial number that matches its v3 counterpart.
>>>
>>> Hi Carl.  I briefly discussed the idea of changing the version number
>>> with Ben a few months ago...
>>
>> Sorry for the rehash.  There are occasions where I miss an email in this
>> list:-)
> 
> No need to apologize.  It was an off-list discussion.  :-)
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email