[cabfpub] RFC5280

[Doug Beattie]

Good questions Jeremy.

I hate to ask, but is rfc 5019 another RFC that must be met in order to be BR compliant, and will any errors there be warnings or full audit findings?  There are a lot of rules about cache values which we might not be all compliant with.

                https://certificate.revocationcheck.com/




From: public-bounces at cabforum.org [mailto:public-bounces at cabforum.org] On Behalf Of Jeremy Rowley
Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 2016 1:56 PM
To: public at cabforum.org
Subject: [cabfpub] RFC5280

I've been playing around with Peter Bowen's certlint (an excellent tool) and, looking at the cert universe as a whole, there are some noticeable issues with the BRs and RFC 5280 that I though merited a public CAB Forum discussion.  Some of this is likely me not knowing the entire history of 5280, so I appreciated any explanation. If there's exceptions we would like to make to RFC5280, we should probably also push a bis with IETF at the same time.

Here's what I'm noticing are common issues:

1)      Org names, common names,  and address fields are limited to 64 characters. Very few international companies can comply with this restriction. It's even worse if you are converting an IDN to a printable string.  I don't think any browsers limit this to 64 characters?  Is there a strong objection to permitting longer strings in these fields?

2)      keyAgreement isn't specifically prohibited in the BRs or 5280. However, keyAgreement should no longer be used in ECC certs because of security issues as explained by Ryan Sleevi in previous emails . We should update the BRs to prohibit keyAgreement.

3)      Years ago, we discussed that 2047 bit certs were equivalent to 2048 bit certs (although the discussion may have occurred solely on the Mozilla mailing list).  We should codify this exception.

4)      Why is teletext string not permissible on a lot of these fields? I also don't understand the weird requirement to use printablestring over UTRF8 for some fields. Specifically, requiring a printable string for subject:serialNumber could cause issues with the EV Guidelines if a country uses an IDN as part of their registration number.

Thoughts?

Jeremy
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.cabforum.org/pipermail/public/attachments/20160225/25817363/attachment-0003.html>