Re: [Trans] Precertificate format

Stephen Kent <kent@bbn.com> Wed, 10 September 2014 15:57 UTC

Return-Path: <kent@bbn.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 670A81A8772 for <trans@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 10 Sep 2014 08:57:06 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.832
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.832 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, MISSING_HEADERS=1.021, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, 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 inqaZGMVNs9A for <trans@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 10 Sep 2014 08:57:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp.bbn.com (smtp.bbn.com [128.33.1.81]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9AA571A8771 for <trans@ietf.org>; Wed, 10 Sep 2014 08:57:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dommiel.bbn.com ([192.1.122.15]:50020 helo=comsec.home) by smtp.bbn.com with esmtp (Exim 4.77 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <kent@bbn.com>) id 1XRkGj-000JI5-JR for trans@ietf.org; Wed, 10 Sep 2014 11:57:17 -0400
Message-ID: <541074CE.80601@bbn.com>
Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2014 11:57:02 -0400
From: Stephen Kent <kent@bbn.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.9; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
CC: "trans@ietf.org" <trans@ietf.org>
References: <540DFA75.2040000@gmail.com> <540E0E90.1070208@bbn.com> <CAFewVt5kZqw0-W7PqtFHe7yJUsR9PqVJ6C74ZShgo0qs19wLjA@mail.gmail.com> <540F3939.4070302@bbn.com> <CAFewVt5MRb5gVyK3daTHN=JyXq1WG_PEBn4u0YacJJk9ffN7mg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAFewVt5MRb5gVyK3daTHN=JyXq1WG_PEBn4u0YacJJk9ffN7mg@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/trans/H3AEfb0u3MEmKyeWrLzsrivYyaM
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 15:57:06 -0000

Brian,

> On Tue, Sep 9, 2014 at 10:30 AM, Stephen Kent <kent@bbn.com> wrote:
>> Brian,
>>
>> Can you re-state your proposal. I'm confused, in part because one does
>> not sign anything using a cert; one verifies a signed thing using a public
>> key from a cert.
> Rick and Carl did a good job of explaining why my line of reasoning
> didn't make sense in the first place, regardless of my poor choice of
> terminology.
no problem. people often refer to certs "signing" stuff; I have
a compulsion to note the error every time I see it :-).
> By the way, in draft -04 there are similar abuses of terminology that
> should be cleaned up. Here's one example, "The resulting
> TBSCertificate [RFC5280] is then signed with either [...] a
> special-purpose [...] Precertificate Signing Certificate [...] or, the
> CA certificate that will sign the final certificate." There are
> probably more.
I believe I noted these terminology problems in -03, in my review.

Steve