[Trans] Alternate formats for Precertificates

Ben Laurie <benl@google.com> Wed, 26 February 2014 15:30 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 03C7B1A0645 for <trans@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 26 Feb 2014 07:30:10 -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 Iq8cJAkazLDz for <trans@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 26 Feb 2014 07:30:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-vc0-x236.google.com (mail-vc0-x236.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c03::236]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9793F1A0420 for <trans@ietf.org>; Wed, 26 Feb 2014 07:30:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-vc0-f182.google.com with SMTP id id10so1081696vcb.13 for <trans@ietf.org>; Wed, 26 Feb 2014 07:30:05 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=h/Sh49jPWFcJGlyKC07yM4hIGI1bbCO/VRhXcThP2vA=; b=NLqmI3J4FK1vbApUP4WMWdhwgCprK93CKmvDUrId9OtcF3o+Zi5SQ12Wnj3oVBza64 uthmtggG0PNkxKUyjhITguzZgMn0k+BsxWBk+cgWDZuFu+n62/K8HLk9XvYb7C7t1ViT VgiqqRVhqUf/2z4rF86V3NV5mWtAxKv6qoKKL9fByMie91Tls+rQtuh9SIi+g6WsH8zJ fzTap+DDto2B2zsPVC/OFOIw1blW01uRzl5BU707wtR188/aFRAifYcTvrE9hTQ3e074 mNo0UpspHzuYhToIFJltmZNvdYqIPj5E7G55B/f108R9O4+maqchDuQzgutpjqKeFkM/ 4iZA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=h/Sh49jPWFcJGlyKC07yM4hIGI1bbCO/VRhXcThP2vA=; b=lsiONeFss5PEo3oMrTGb4NGy0TUQXOq10SdcJIEPu+bTammAS55GjWiC/cZXP3swcy WkPH4epzspICEYGt9EKGXE4fueveh2ort1TtIL+jIfPi81zhIEyYJf6JWYLRK888nWmr xQ7z9KwiBIhSIOP/6ZG+p1RjHwQYOZ0bYNf9tUoboBHiAmTxTu8NwH4HIEQ2d0I/UEGf T4c4BWIAxnj64VXYrbwTIf2Tc4L2PEWUjY32xbt9WNJy4Cszb9xeu6dkEqKCMcQ3EgdD jblARMosQGmjzdP1AW3U+vFjLJCGQdFIacnZj6eu8CpRWx2GSsjq+/7Xtd97aAq7qi7L sBxw==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkfX6ra9ZZRhqefcvTSBiccnUQ+SKxfXGSSsLqbh5jMYkjt6xMcr68RNcfG874N8ormcvL4vNLkWLUbBIkX8IEKxaXgeShyZFTw7t4c3iQN9V3nU7K8AYgEUDUQcl35b+5xH6JYYMthtSu9dKXSF4jrQkHj/AGEtugJD9WDAsVvlGy7A+wXfRX9uYbvABXEyRs18DxO
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.58.188.78 with SMTP id fy14mr6478101vec.23.1393428605108; Wed, 26 Feb 2014 07:30:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.52.230.105 with HTTP; Wed, 26 Feb 2014 07:30:05 -0800 (PST)
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2014 15:30:05 +0000
Message-ID: <CABrd9SSOmEgbTvLNw5bPN2SnKbob800qEecn+tHvZUkrghFcQg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Ben Laurie <benl@google.com>
To: Tomas Gustavsson <tomas@primekey.se>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/trans/IdKd3eeCud2TtK6usvuCT7r43O8
Cc: "trans@ietf.org" <trans@ietf.org>
Subject: [Trans] Alternate formats for Precertificates
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 15:30:10 -0000

On 26 February 2014 14:13, Tomas Gustavsson <tomas@primekey.se> wrote:
>
> 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.

Hmm. So it is. I had not come across this RFC before.

Does anything implement it?

>
> 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 doesn┬╣t matter, breaking name chaining seems like an odd way to
>>>>> maintain ┬│ritual 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.  :-)
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Trans mailing list
> Trans@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/trans