Stefan Santesson | 1 Jul 2009 02:59
Favicon

Way forward - updating RFC 3161

We need to resolve how to update RFC 3161 with respect to allowing support of RFC 5035 (ESSV2)
One particular reason is because ETSI ESI is dependent on progression of this issue in PKIX.

I would like to open this issue up for debate and then hopefully conclude this issue, possibly after a straw poll.

My personal opinion, and what I interpret as the general opinion of this working group is that we should reject draft-ietf-pkix-rfc3161bis-01 as basis for updating rfc 3161. This draft intends to obsolete RFC 3161 and introduces major changes to terminology and role description to align RFC 3161 with the informational document RFC 3628.

It is problematic to introduce such major changes to a standard that is widely deployed. It is neither required from a protocol implementation perspective as these changes are not intended to change any bits on the wire. The optional usage of ESSV2 does not motivate a total rewrite of the current standard, but is better handled in an update RFC.

If description of roles and responsibilities that so not change any bits on the wire need to be clarified in relation to RFC 3628 and RFC 3161, then this should be handled either as an update to RFC 3628 or as a separate informational document.

/Stefan
Adriano Santoni | 1 Jul 2009 07:59
Picon
Favicon

Re: Way forward - updating RFC 3161


I fully agree with Stefan.

Adriano

Stefan Santesson ha scritto:
> We need to resolve how to update RFC 3161 with respect to allowing 
> support of RFC 5035 (ESSV2)
> One particular reason is because ETSI ESI is dependent on progression 
> of this issue in PKIX.
>
> I would like to open this issue up for debate and then hopefully 
> conclude this issue, possibly after a straw poll.
>
> My personal opinion, and what I interpret as the general opinion of 
> this working group is that we should reject 
> draft-ietf-pkix-rfc3161bis-01 as basis for updating rfc 3161. This 
> draft intends to obsolete RFC 3161 and introduces major changes to 
> terminology and role description to align RFC 3161 with the 
> informational document RFC 3628.
>
> It is problematic to introduce such major changes to a standard that 
> is widely deployed. It is neither required from a protocol 
> implementation perspective as these changes are not intended to change 
> any bits on the wire. The optional usage of ESSV2 does not motivate a 
> total rewrite of the current standard, but is better handled in an 
> update RFC.
>
> If description of roles and responsibilities that so not change any 
> bits on the wire need to be clarified in relation to RFC 3628 and RFC 
> 3161, then this should be handled either as an update to RFC 3628 or 
> as a separate informational document.
>
> /Stefan 

Liaquat Khan | 1 Jul 2009 08:42

RE: Way forward - updating RFC 3161


Yes, me too.

Regards,
LK

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-ietf-pkix <at> mail.imc.org [mailto:owner-ietf-pkix <at> mail.imc.org] On
Behalf Of Adriano Santoni
Sent: 01 July 2009 10:00
To: Stefan Santesson
Cc: ietf-pkix <at> imc.org; Denis Pinkas; Pope, Nick
Subject: Re: Way forward - updating RFC 3161

I fully agree with Stefan.

Adriano

Stefan Santesson ha scritto:
> We need to resolve how to update RFC 3161 with respect to allowing 
> support of RFC 5035 (ESSV2)
> One particular reason is because ETSI ESI is dependent on progression 
> of this issue in PKIX.
>
> I would like to open this issue up for debate and then hopefully 
> conclude this issue, possibly after a straw poll.
>
> My personal opinion, and what I interpret as the general opinion of 
> this working group is that we should reject 
> draft-ietf-pkix-rfc3161bis-01 as basis for updating rfc 3161. This 
> draft intends to obsolete RFC 3161 and introduces major changes to 
> terminology and role description to align RFC 3161 with the 
> informational document RFC 3628.
>
> It is problematic to introduce such major changes to a standard that 
> is widely deployed. It is neither required from a protocol 
> implementation perspective as these changes are not intended to change 
> any bits on the wire. The optional usage of ESSV2 does not motivate a 
> total rewrite of the current standard, but is better handled in an 
> update RFC.
>
> If description of roles and responsibilities that so not change any 
> bits on the wire need to be clarified in relation to RFC 3628 and RFC 
> 3161, then this should be handled either as an update to RFC 3628 or 
> as a separate informational document.
>
> /Stefan 

Peter Sylvester | 1 Jul 2009 11:53
Picon
Picon
Favicon

Re: Way forward - updating RFC 3161


Treating Stefan's request as a straw poll: I agree to reject the draft.
No comment about what should be done as updates to other texts.

Pope, Nick | 1 Jul 2009 12:47

RE: Way forward - updating RFC 3161

Stefan,

 

I also agree with the approach of updating RFC 3161.  Changing the model of RFC 3161 is only going to cause confusion.

 

The implementation architecture concepts used in the earlier proposal are already described in RFC 3628  and so I see no need for further steps on that aspect.

 

Nick

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Stefan Santesson [mailto:stefan <at> aaa-sec.com]
Sent: 01 July 2009 02:00
To: ietf-pkix <at> imc.org
Cc: Denis Pinkas; Pope, Nick
Subject: Way forward - updating RFC 3161

 

We need to resolve how to update RFC 3161 with respect to allowing support of RFC 5035 (ESSV2)
One particular reason is because ETSI ESI is dependent on progression of this issue in PKIX.

I would like to open this issue up for debate and then hopefully conclude this issue, possibly after a straw poll.

My personal opinion, and what I interpret as the general opinion of this working group is that we should reject draft-ietf-pkix-rfc3161bis-01 as basis for updating rfc 3161. This draft intends to obsolete RFC 3161 and introduces major changes to terminology and role description to align RFC 3161 with the informational document RFC 3628.

It is problematic to introduce such major changes to a standard that is widely deployed. It is neither required from a protocol implementation perspective as these changes are not intended to change any bits on the wire. The optional usage of ESSV2 does not motivate a total rewrite of the current standard, but is better handled in an update RFC.

If description of roles and responsibilities that so not change any bits on the wire need to be clarified in relation to RFC 3628 and RFC 3161, then this should be handled either as an update to RFC 3628 or as a separate informational document.

/Stefan

The IESG | 6 Jul 2009 19:45
Picon
Favicon

Document Action: 'Traceable Anonymous Certificate' to Experimental RFC

The IESG has approved the following document:

- 'Traceable Anonymous Certificate '
   <draft-ietf-pkix-tac-04.txt> as an Experimental RFC

This document is the product of the Public-Key Infrastructure (X.509) 
Working Group. 

The IESG contact persons are Tim Polk and Pasi Eronen.

A URL of this Internet-Draft is:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-pkix-tac-04.txt

Technical Summary

   This document describes a model for issuing X.509 certificates in
which the certificates do not contain the "true" name of the user, and
thus provide some level of anonymity. Traceable Anonymous Certificates
(TACs) are issued by a CA that is divided into two parts. One part
verifies and records the identity of the user to whom the certificate is
issued, and the other issues the certificate to the user but does not know
the user's identity.  The certificates issued under the TAC model are
intended primary for use in web access (and not in applications such as
e-mail). The model allows an aggrieved party to request that a TAC CA
divulge the identity of a user who has abused the anonymity offered by the
certificate. (Details of what constitutes abuse by a user are outside the
scope of the document and are established by TAC CA via a Certification
Policy.) To void the anonymity offered by the two-arty issuance procedure,
both parts of the CA collaborate using a protocol defined in the document.

  The current version of the model supports only RSA-based security
protocols between the two parts of the TAC CA, although the user's
certificate may contain a public key for any algorithm.

Working Group Summary

This document has reached rough WG consensus after considerable debate
over the last 18 months. It is targeted at Experimental status. This work
did not attract much interest from most WG members initially. It addresses
a PKI niche, which some WG members didn't think would ever be of
commercial interest. The document authors were Korean and they had
considerable trouble expressing their ideas in writing, and in a suitable
style for an IETF standard. Steve Kent, my co-chair, agreed to become a
co-author and he re-wrote the document and has coordinated subsequent
revisions. Two WG members provided extensive reviews of the I-D, which
resulted in a number of changes to address technical details. The version
that entered WGLC triggered comments from a few WG members. Changes were
made to address several of these comments, but a suggestion to make a
substantial design change was rejected. Two WG members raised concerns
whether the split-signature technology employed here adds enough security
to merit the increased complexity. However, the principle authors work for
KISA, the Korean Information Security Agency that accredits CAs in that
country. Their judgment that this is a reasonable tradeoff is enough to
merit progression as experimental document. The real proof of the
document's value will be decided based on adoption by CAs, something the
KISA authors say will happen (at least in their country).

Document Quality

There are no know implementations at this time, which is not surprising
for a document targeted at Experimental status. However, the KISA staff
who are the principle authors have indicated that they anticipate at least
one commercial TAC CA (in South Korea) will be forthcoming after an RFC is
published. An organization that chooses to implement the model described
here will be a CA service provider, not a product vendor per se.

RFC Editor Note

This document is being forwarded for publication assuming that the
proposed update to the TLP will be completed by the IETF Trust prior
to completion of the RFC publication process.  If that process does not
terminate successfully, please make the following substitution in 
Appendix A, replacing RFC XXXX with the number assigned to this RFC:

OLD

   DEFINITIONS IMPLICIT TAGS ::=

NEW

   DEFINITIONS IMPLICIT TAGS ::=

--
--   Copyright (c) 2009 IETF Trust and the persons identified as
--   authors of the code.  All rights reserved.
--
--   Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without
--   modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions
--   are met:
--
--   - Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright
--     notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
--
--   - Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright
--     notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in
--     the documentation and/or other materials provided with the
--     distribution.
--
--   - Neither the name of Internet Society, IETF or IETF Trust, nor the
--     names of specific contributors, may be used to endorse or promote
--     products derived from this software without specific prior
--     written permission.
--
--
--
--   THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND CONTRIBUTORS
--   'AS IS' AND ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT
--   LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR
--   A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE COPYRIGHT
--   OWNER OR CONTRIBUTORS BE LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL,
--   SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT
--   LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES; LOSS OF USE,
--   DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY
--   THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT
--   (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE
--   OF THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.
--
--   This version of the ASN.1 module is part of RFC XXXX;
--   see the RFC itself for full legal notices.
--

_______________________________________________
IETF-Announce mailing list
IETF-Announce <at> ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce

Stefan Santesson | 9 Jul 2009 03:06
Favicon

WGLC on draft-ietf-pkix-new-asn1-05.txt


Initiating WG last call on
draft-ietf-pkix-new-asn1-05.txt
Last call ends on Friday July 24.

/Stefan
Stefan Santesson | 9 Jul 2009 13:13
Favicon

Re: Way forward - updating RFC 3161

I conclude that the list so far is unanimous in its view of not accepting the approach of draft-ietf-pkix-rfc3161bis-01.
Even though we have not heard the opinion of the draft author, It feels that we will have a strong consensus for just making a short update document.

/Stefan


On 09-07-01 12:47 PM, "Pope, Nick" <Nick.Pope <at> thales-esecurity.com> wrote:

Stefan,
 
I also agree with the approach of updating RFC 3161.  Changing the model of RFC 3161 is only going to cause confusion.
 
The implementation architecture concepts used in the earlier proposal are already described in RFC 3628  and so I see no need for further steps on that aspect.
 
Nick
 

-----Original Message-----
From: Stefan Santesson [mailto:stefan <at> aaa-sec.com]
Sent: 01 July 2009 02:00
To: ietf-pkix <at> imc.org
Cc: Denis Pinkas; Pope, Nick
Subject: Way forward - updating RFC 3161

We need to resolve how to update RFC 3161 with respect to allowing support of RFC 5035 (ESSV2)
One particular reason is because ETSI ESI is dependent on progression of this issue in PKIX.

I would like to open this issue up for debate and then hopefully conclude this issue, possibly after a straw poll.

My personal opinion, and what I interpret as the general opinion of this working group is that we should reject draft-ietf-pkix-rfc3161bis-01 as basis for updating rfc 3161. This draft intends to obsolete RFC 3161 and introduces major changes to terminology and role description to align RFC 3161 with the informational document RFC 3628.

It is problematic to introduce such major changes to a standard that is widely deployed. It is neither required from a protocol implementation perspective as these changes are not intended to change any bits on the wire. The optional usage of ESSV2 does not motivate a total rewrite of the current standard, but is better handled in an update RFC.

If description of roles and responsibilities that so not change any bits on the wire need to be clarified in relation to RFC 3628 and RFC 3161, then this should be handled either as an update to RFC 3628 or as a separate informational document.

/Stefan


The IESG | 9 Jul 2009 23:31
Picon
Favicon

Last Call: draft-ietf-pkix-ta-format (Trust Anchor Format) to

Proposed Standard

The IESG has received a request from the Public-Key Infrastructure 
(X.509) WG (pkix) to consider the following document:

- 'Trust Anchor Format '
   <draft-ietf-pkix-ta-format-03.txt> as a Proposed Standard

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final comments on this action.  Please send substantive comments to the
ietf <at> ietf.org mailing lists by 2009-07-23. Exceptionally, 
comments may be sent to iesg <at> ietf.org instead. In either case, please 
retain the beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

The file can be obtained via
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-pkix-ta-format-03.txt

IESG discussion can be tracked via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/pidtracker.cgi?command=view_id&dTag=17759&rfc_flag=0

_______________________________________________
IETF-Announce mailing list
IETF-Announce <at> ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce

The IESG | 10 Jul 2009 02:13
Picon
Favicon

Last Call: draft-ietf-pkix-ta-format (Trust Anchor Format) to Proposed Standard

The IESG has received a request from the Public-Key Infrastructure 
(X.509) WG (pkix) to consider the following document:

- 'Trust Anchor Format '
   <draft-ietf-pkix-ta-format-03.txt> as a Proposed Standard

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final comments on this action.  Please send substantive comments to the
ietf <at> ietf.org mailing lists by 2009-07-23. Exceptionally, 
comments may be sent to iesg <at> ietf.org instead. In either case, please 
retain the beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

The file can be obtained via
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-pkix-ta-format-03.txt

IESG discussion can be tracked via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/pidtracker.cgi?command=view_id&dTag=17759&rfc_flag=0

_______________________________________________
IETF-Announce mailing list
IETF-Announce <at> ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce


Gmane