IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Trans] running code (was: Re: Draft agenda)

Ben Laurie <benl@google.com> Wed, 26 February 2014 12:47 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 8628A1A02E4 for <trans@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 26 Feb 2014 04:47:24 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.926
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.926 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=-0.547, 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 YrmMxnl9tcFj for <trans@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 26 Feb 2014 04:47:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-vc0-x22b.google.com (mail-vc0-x22b.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c03::22b]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9FBCD1A02E3 for <trans@ietf.org>; Wed, 26 Feb 2014 04:47:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-vc0-f171.google.com with SMTP id le5so871071vcb.30 for <trans@ietf.org>; Wed, 26 Feb 2014 04:47:19 -0800 (PST)
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=olKp0nl4EGhcvDVm/mok5YMChx7ATevkX4ihAfHDibQ=; b=jzf+le7rDl/o3c87B1AJzOcDbNMIbulLUBYasNR5F3i470OrOPvPSdqJXm7+pujMhX emlmzkfD8NJnRHgC2Jm1ItfXDPXi1uywD7JlcYt4HBHxY0iFpKszqmVhSt/4BiK2vNLG eP+tfJimMT6uqn+RhaaIobkhJhB2voUKczX7UQ698ZISMPUEyTuyvrCUZ5QHiDesnoQL 3CnpuvSoRSEUGvSBZNL9E0B7/YgxV2oQ7qQo5GuMEWfveBjco7Sp/R7zZ2SCNZcPPhff kE8yIPgFRHETtyLnAQyu3qTMcZUxe6cAKemCs2US+ZaqiPD96RL9DPn8fJrPnVffQ4JR MM2A==
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=olKp0nl4EGhcvDVm/mok5YMChx7ATevkX4ihAfHDibQ=; b=YI2AWWZCIZOx9lD+Ovva79c74dpx1k1+9EMSMIOCfKag/+CTTRYTHWk37VKaJlo750 9JZdfpFHY4SHtrbFoxPdPY/m4ayw4DQKyMdlH8inJGLZtqv94T51VAFt2SmP7huRX3fg cNnGnO+i53IVd8itR0yHAVe7+7txdgGSOE86DvhIbXoQPoK0us++HD1F3JJZqMtnLmh4 u7xtaYtlCNW/dmjMGc51VnXsW9JurPXvO+uMgnie9IoM5HCzUmFkimt5jroee0w35n2D xX0MwSLVJOZhCl6l2H0wP0r8BNCWI5nwS5lSI1SXBYwf/umSfFvOaU6SchkdEStK5M+S ya3A==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmvkm29C+N9RVIE1aAUOEhFgc0R1BIbUaM4oWnRR25rpo74zo32U8UCS+C+DceLvt1ZPuvGD8BE0/vbrksZn6KXFCZGCt5J5w4CyDrVJdhVzoj7QU1iYwdQ+xtgunJFGttUxfteNhMTmkYZf5xZImEzKO//D9bB46nkwJY76ZTDw0s29ExZvqcb5Cokx52OluKCgfhd
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.58.255.233 with SMTP id at9mr6057718ved.20.1393418839279; Wed, 26 Feb 2014 04:47:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.52.230.105 with HTTP; Wed, 26 Feb 2014 04:47:19 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <530DE176.9020401@cs.tcd.ie>
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> <530DE176.9020401@cs.tcd.ie>
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2014 12:47:19 +0000
Message-ID: <CABrd9SS953Lwq=iaiwXB3-AOtu5Rfv0hj-LjqqNK72D9XzkMhw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Ben Laurie <benl@google.com>
To: Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/trans/GI40iR_hY9u1UOwYOn42PoE8Gqw
Cc: Phillip Hallam-Baker <hallam@gmail.com>, Rob Stradling <rob.stradling@comodo.com>, "trans@ietf.org" <trans@ietf.org>, Melinda Shore <melinda.shore@gmail.com>, Eran Messeri <eranm@google.com>
Subject: Re: [Trans] running code (was: Re: 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 12:47:24 -0000

On 26 February 2014 12:43, Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie> wrote:
>
> I'm not that keen on the phrase ritual compliance.

I think it captures the essence quite nicely. What would you prefer?

> There is a lot of PKI code in the world that assumes
> that issuer/serial is a unique identifier for a good
> X.509 certificate.
>
> It'd be best to not break such code by invalidating
> that assumption.

CT does not break that assumption: the second cert is effectively the
same cert, only lacking an SCT. It is also not a "good" certificate
(it has a critical extension no-one understands). Revocation of either
certificate implies revocation of the other. There's really only one
cert, conceptually.

> If there's a good enough reason to do it, that might
> be ok, but I figure the burden to demonstrate that
> that is in fact ok should be on those arguing for such
> a change.

This has been extensively discussed, and so far no reason has been
found to care other than ritual compliance.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email