------- Forwarded Message
From SRS0=c649ea436bb7f94904d7eb80db940951b33abd3e=167=mail.imc.org=owner-ietf-pkix@es.net Mon Nov 27 12:55:57 2006 Message-ID: <456B47D1.2050405@cs.tcd.ie> Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2006 20:17:21 +0000 From: Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie> User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.8 (Windows/20061025) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com> CC: ietf-pkix@imc.org Subject: Re: on-hold certificates in CRLs References: <a7d7da420611270753s70be3596qebe24ea9f3aff6b@mail.gmail.com> <7.0.0.16.2.20061127140855.07404318@vigilsec.com> In-Reply-To: <7.0.0.16.2.20061127140855.07404318@vigilsec.com> List-ID: <ietf-pkix.imc.org>
Bit of a late change, but a good one, S. Russ Housley wrote:
I would like to take this opportunity to advocate the deprecation of "on hold" altogether. No good can come from it, as been discussed so many times on this list.
I can live with the current text, but I think it would be far better to say that the "on hold" status MUST NOT be used by CAs conforming to 3280bis.
Russ
At 10:53 AM 11/27/2006, Carlos González-Cadenas wrote:
Hi,
Suppose we have the following ordered temporal sequence
t1 - a certificate with serial "S1" is issued by a CA t2 - the certificate is put on-hold by the CA (i.e. in order to investigate a possible compromise) t3 - a full CRL is issued by the CA t4 - the investigation carried by the CA ends up in no compromise, and the CA makes the certificate valid again t5 - a delta CRL is issued by the CA t6 - a full CRL is issued by the CA
Does the CRL logs all the revocation-related events for the certificate with serial S1?.
If we assume that all the events are logged, then the CRLs contents (for certificate with serial S1) should be:
full CRL issued at t3: contains an entry for S1 at t3 with reason code on-hold delta CRL issued at t5: contains the previous full CRL entry plus an entry for S1 at t5 with reason code removeFromCRL full CRL issued at t6: contains both previous entries (so you know the on-hold period for the certificate) (maybe this is violating RFC3280 as removeFromCRL is only applicable for deltaCRLs??)
If we assume that NOT all events are logged, CRLs issued >=T6 don't include revocation entries for certificate S1, that is
full CRL issued at t3: contains an entry for S1 at t3 with reason code on-hold delta CRL issued at t5: contains the previous full CRL entry plus an entry for S1 at t5 with reason code removeFromCRL full CRL issued at t6: contains NO entry for S1
Which is the normative (RFC3280) behaviour for that case?. Is there any change between RFC3280 and RFC3280bis about these issues?
Note that if the second case is the normative behaviour IMHO there's no way (except storing the CRLs between t2 and the next CRL appeared after t4) for a relying party (verifying the certificate in or after t6) to know the certificate status between t2 and t4.
Many thanks in advance,
Carlos
------- End of Forwarded Message