[Trans] path validation

Stephen Kent <kent@bbn.com> Mon, 29 September 2014 14:41 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 []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6F6311A878E for <trans@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 29 Sep 2014 07:41:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.987
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.987 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.786, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id vzwFDJ7KXlot for <trans@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 29 Sep 2014 07:41:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp.bbn.com (smtp.bbn.com []) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 11B251A8784 for <trans@ietf.org>; Mon, 29 Sep 2014 07:41:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dommiel.bbn.com ([]:46640 helo=comsec.home) by smtp.bbn.com with esmtp (Exim 4.77 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <kent@bbn.com>) id 1XYc9S-000ED7-AM for trans@ietf.org; Mon, 29 Sep 2014 10:42:10 -0400
Message-ID: <54296FB2.1060109@bbn.com>
Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2014 10:41:54 -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
To: "trans@ietf.org" <trans@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/trans/VPlLgw3Dwc2yiX_HaWfuj96HTys
Subject: [Trans] path validation
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: Mon, 29 Sep 2014 14:41:58 -0000

I realized, after I sent my reply, that Santosh's point wrt path validation
is important. I believe Ben indicated that he did not envision logs 
performing all
of the 5280 checks, just verifying the signatures in the path. So, I 
misspoke when
I noted that 6962-bis already called for path checking; it calls for it, 
but only
in a very superficial way.

Thus we need to decide if we believe that a sig-only check on a path 
consistent with
the CABF guidelines. I don't think it is. The Definitions section of the 
CABF guidelines
includes the following entry:

     Valid Certificate: A Certificate that passes the validation 
procedure specified in RFC 5280.