<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)">
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>
<body lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">Would like to discuss OCSP Responder certificate validity.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">The BRs do not discuss how OCSP systems should be operated. It would appear that a short validity period would be to mitigate against a low security policy on
the OCSP responder and keys.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">In our case, we manage the OCSP responder similar to an issuing CA. The responder is in a secure zone and the keys are protected on a FIPS 140-2 Level 3 HSM with
M of N controls. Since the keys perform a function which the CA could perform, we treat the keys in the same manner as a CA. As such, if the OCSP key is compromised, then the CA is also compromised and CA certificate revocation would be required. In this case,
I do not think that a 30 (or 45) day upper-bound validity is required. We currently use 3 years, but it could be argued that the validity period could be even longer.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">Thanks, Bruce.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"> Public [mailto:public-bounces@cabforum.org]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Ryan Sleevi via Public<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Monday, May 8, 2017 7:52 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> Curt Spann <cspann@apple.com><br>
<b>Cc:</b> Ryan Sleevi <sleevi@google.com>; CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion List <public@cabforum.org><br>
<b>Subject:</b> [EXTERNAL]Re: [cabfpub] Profiling OCSP & CRLs<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">I think 30 days is what we should target as the upper-bound, so would that be suggesting that we should target 15 days as a SHOULD with 30 as a MUST?<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Or were you suggesting 30 as a SHOULD, 45 as a MUST, which in practice means... well, 45? :)<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 12:57 PM, Curt Spann <<a href="mailto:cspann@apple.com" target="_blank">cspann@apple.com</a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote style="border:none;border-left:solid #CCCCCC 1.0pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-right:0in">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Hi Ryan,<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Regarding delegated OCSP responder certificate validity, if 30 days is a desired goal (or a similar timeframe), I would recommend 45 days to allow the renewal to occur every 30 days, with a 15 day buffer for operational issues. Basically,
for whatever target validity period we should add some buffer time.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Cheers,<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Curt<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">On Apr 25, 2017, at 4:53 PM, Ryan Sleevi via Public <<a href="mailto:public@cabforum.org" target="_blank">public@cabforum.org</a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Hi folks,<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">In response to various investigations about OCSP performance, operation, and trying to figure out how we can move to a world of more ubiquitous OCSP stapling, one of the things that comes up is that OCSP responses are very much like the
pre-BR wild-west of certificates.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">I've tried to capture a starting point for discussion at <a href="https://github.com/sleevi/cabforum-docs/pull/2/files?diff=split" target="_blank">https://github.com/sleevi/cabforum-docs/pull/2/files?diff=split</a> . I've tried to annotate
the changes, and the reason for the changes, so that people can understand them, their goals, and the implications.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">While I'd like to get this to the point of a Ballot, it's not quite there yet. In particular, it doesn't state Effective Dates, because I want to get a sense of the challenges that each bit may pose :)<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">If people find this approach useful, I'd like to also reform the CRL profile in a similar fashion.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">There's also a lot of ways to express these requirements. I considered using a table approach, which I suspect some of our ETSI-audited CA members will be familiar with, and which I find useful, but I thought it best to keep the initial
discussions simple and textual, and then we can make it pretty once we're happy with the substance.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal">_______________________________________________<br>
Public mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Public@cabforum.org" target="_blank">Public@cabforum.org</a><br>
<a href="https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public" target="_blank">https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public</a><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>