<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 13/10/2021 5:17 μ.μ., Ryan Sleevi
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CACvaWvb=BkDTjOE=_of5iFYeH6mu0ngp9eddVpPJFuANURrcAw@mail.gmail.com">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr"><br>
</div>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Wed, Oct 13, 2021 at
10:05 AM Dimitris Zacharopoulos (HARICA) <<a
href="mailto:dzacharo@harica.gr" moz-do-not-send="true">dzacharo@harica.gr</a>>
wrote:</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left:1px solid
rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div> 4.9.7 and 4.9.10 have a nextUpdate requirement for
Root CRLs and OCSP responses, and this is set for 12
months. Do we want the same level of "accuracy" as the
CRL/OCSP responses of Subordinate CAs? If we do not, then
we can focus on language about just the CRLs/OCSP
responses issued by "online" CAs, as Wayne has already
done at the proposed ballot and there is no need to make
further changes to the BRs. <br>
<br>
If I understand your position, you believe we should be
specific (to the second) only for specific requirements,
such as those linked to RFC 5280 (validity of a
certificate, validity period of a CRL/OCSP response) and
not the other cases (related to request tokens, audit
reports, etc). Is that accurate?<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Got it. Definite misunderstanding :)</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>To try to rephrase:</div>
<div>
<ul>
<li>Defining a day to be 86,400 seconds (with caveats) is
appropriate for Section 1.6.4 if the desire is to make
this ballot a broader "date interval" cleanup rather
than just the CRL cleanup</li>
<li>This convention cannot address the "inclusive" aspect;
that will need to remain appropriate for ASN.1 types
(certificates, CRLs, OCSP)<br>
</li>
<li>The term "validity period" refers to certificates, and
comes from X.509/RFC 5280. The term "validity interval"
is a term we introduced for OCSP, because CRLs and OCSP
responses don't necessarily have 'validity periods'
(intervals, freshness, etc are all concepts used to
refer to them) <br>
</li>
<ul>
<li>Taken together with the previous bullet: This means
there still needs to be definitions specific to those,
and within the specific sections (long-term, this
would be the relevant profiles for certificates, CRLs,
and OCSP, rather than the current distributed
locations)</li>
</ul>
<li>Procedural controls - request tokens, audit reports,
etc - still make sense to define in days</li>
<ul>
<li>However, the choice of period - 90 days vs 93 days,
397 days vs 398 days, 31 days vs 32 days - were
intentionally selected to <i>allow</i> CAs to have a
fixed calendrical schedule, without risk of violation.</li>
<li>For example, if you have a 30 day period, then over
a year, you will have shifted 5 to 6 days. You won't
be able to, for example, "do something on the first of
every month"</li>
<li>The "extra day" is to make sure that if you do it at
9am on the 1st of the month prior, you (hopefully
unambiguously) have until midnight of the 1st of the
current month, without running afoul</li>
</ul>
</ul>
<div><br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
Got it. Do you have any guidance or preference for the offline CA
CRLs/OCSP responses? Should that continue to be described in months
or move into something more specific?<br>
</body>
</html>