Re: [Trans] Precertificate format

Ben Laurie <benl@google.com> Wed, 10 September 2014 09:54 UTC

Return-Path: <benl@google.com>
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 64C741A06D7 for <trans@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 10 Sep 2014 02:54:39 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.031
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.031 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.652, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 rrknsYQyJCBJ for <trans@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 10 Sep 2014 02:54:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qc0-x230.google.com (mail-qc0-x230.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c01::230]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0BB6F1A06CB for <trans@ietf.org>; Wed, 10 Sep 2014 02:54:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qc0-f176.google.com with SMTP id x3so5886544qcv.35 for <trans@ietf.org>; Wed, 10 Sep 2014 02:54:37 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=QYyFQNbTqGfzVHqZLEJ0R4F6vOJN0ybW2zSuq6Iz91Y=; b=TVE11xPnOhM5miWYkX8da2l1CV1/q6rUBa6E4RGrNfO6ZGeRJXBzH9vnCov1zbyV1i eE0oioCBBLp68s59FLMZ8q+rbb9Ri3+Ju2FHZpdT+C5HIdiDp8/WAlKnlqYhviW7X25L +g8ix09Y0IZdK/odz2NGuMrBKr+jVbecIKYZ6cdkflWbSHtFj/gbmYB+zYmPpv3pmdhh J6KTuq+FpVj5S6HqTWSOZuW6eG3lRPIQJ+nNKtJPkR29YtYzKCBNcGfPMd4GERpWFUkq D2uV9A6Hescg67IxOmpKRID6QzSPkUGHPbnp2YwQM5VqR2YCYWGNQFQJ6zdSAkp/9Ein Ps/A==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=QYyFQNbTqGfzVHqZLEJ0R4F6vOJN0ybW2zSuq6Iz91Y=; b=ep/vBfAmSE56f/TsQxDJc6fTy8/HlW0AUfW2XTnGZ6PQRzKT3dCR3HFfuJjj2NPhWl UW7Fa7MT8GfSJTPxU6WArtsvj6m5+38MAVoXK/noZINmUTA/FlphWuGljoUm9sofC2Gv llUdAvW8PSv3pDfKAjHxIb/4npaWZEyn0teW76iLm6eRZXQRuUFdRHlvfLar8XdqaK5+ WcYqQAikpf+4iwfK44o5Ulaqk5o/3BBxPRsTvzoCJxB603IXwOkDij7fw/oMvAwxGoEa hr/pr6XZg3RwgsGQ+RSoKXRQZxYwthXjz3deinn0UQyo5W7pitav4ZqeHxc/HQxypSvP 1LZQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQn88O0qzC9uIsSLVr/T/cC1HPQw9XIPCyLwent9TykBubNCcG28Egy0NY3qVn0flD4ahWuA
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.140.91.229 with SMTP id z92mr59006658qgd.8.1410342877259; Wed, 10 Sep 2014 02:54:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.229.247.198 with HTTP; Wed, 10 Sep 2014 02:54:37 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <540F4598.5010505@bbn.com>
References: <540DFA75.2040000@gmail.com> <540E0E90.1070208@bbn.com> <540E28FD.7050809@gmail.com> <540ECD3A.4040704@primekey.se> <540F4598.5010505@bbn.com>
Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2014 10:54:37 +0100
Message-ID: <CABrd9SSg5=wuierLoqAU00pMHxgGx+=ai5mHv4u5t6zm43yDWg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Ben Laurie <benl@google.com>
To: Stephen Kent <kent@bbn.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/trans/FaPTNTupYAKoEerS42eQYx4wUYM
Cc: "trans@ietf.org" <trans@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Trans] Precertificate format
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, 10 Sep 2014 09:54:39 -0000

On 9 September 2014 19:23, Stephen Kent <kent@bbn.com> wrote:
> I agree that using a redefined (to include the serial number) cert template
> from CRMF would avoid the 5280 issue, but it still requires the CA to assign
> the serial number before
> the cert is issued. That is my biggest concern, i.e., it imposes a new
> requirement on
> CAs, one that may have adverse security implication for some. Nonetheless, I
> like your suggestion (minus the serial number) as a starting point. See my
> next message.

I have a suggestion: let the RFC say that any certificate which the
log knows can be revoked without knowing its serial number can omit
the serial number.