[cabf_validation] CRL Validity Interval Ballot

Tue Nov 9 16:47:38 UTC 2021

I would suggest that line 1327 (previously line 1319) be updated in the
same fashion as line 1751 (previously line 1748):
"As stated in [Section 1.6.4](#164-conventions), a difference of 3,600
seconds shall..."

This clearly tags both of those lines as able to be removed in a future
cleanup.

On Thu, Nov 4, 2021 at 9:26 AM Wayne Thayer via Validation <
validation at cabforum.org> wrote:

> On today's Validation SC call, a concern was raised about the scope and
> timing of the addition to section 1.6.4 Conventions that describes the
> method to be used for computing time differences across the entire
> document. Since this has effects well beyond CRLs - for example, the
> lifetime of a random value - it was agreed that it should have a future
> effective date that allows time for CAs to become compliant. I've update
> the proposal to reflect the conclusion of this discussion:
>
> https://github.com/cabforum/servercert/compare/main...wthayer:ballot-SC52
>
> Please have a look and reply with any problems that you find with the new
> language.
>
> Note that line 1319 will become redundant on 1-June 2022 and should be
> removed in a future cleanup ballot.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Wayne
>
> On Sun, Oct 31, 2021 at 1:08 PM Wayne Thayer via Validation <
> validation at cabforum.org> wrote:
>
>> Good point Tim. I just updated the branch to state "at least every 367
>> days; and" to match section 4.9.10.
>>
>> On Fri, Oct 29, 2021 at 1:23 PM Tim Hollebeek <tim.hollebeek at digicert.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Line 1301: “i. once every 367 days; and”
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I think that provision needs an “at least” as well.  I don’t think we
>>> expect CAs to issue CRLs once every 367 days.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -Tim
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *From:* Wayne Thayer <wthayer at gmail.com>
>>> *Sent:* Monday, October 18, 2021 8:29 PM
>>> *To:* Ryan Sleevi <sleevi at google.com>
>>> *Cc:* Dimitris Zacharopoulos (HARICA) <dzacharo at harica.gr>; CABforum3 <
>>> validation at cabforum.org>; Tim Hollebeek <tim.hollebeek at digicert.com>
>>> *Subject:* Re: [cabf_validation] CRL Validity Interval Ballot
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Thank you Ryan! I merged in your changes:
>>> https://github.com/cabforum/servercert/compare/main...wthayer:ballot-SC52
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, Oct 15, 2021 at 2:12 PM Ryan Sleevi <sleevi at google.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Suggested edits in https://github.com/wthayer/servercert/pull/12/files
>>> as PR to your branch
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, Oct 15, 2021 at 4:59 PM Wayne Thayer <wthayer at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> How does this look?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> https://github.com/cabforum/servercert/compare/main...wthayer:ballot-SC52
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Wayne
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Oct 14, 2021 at 11:50 AM Dimitris Zacharopoulos (HARICA) <
>>> dzacharo at harica.gr> wrote:
>>>
>>> That's my understanding too. If we are to create the "validity interval"
>>> definition, we must be clear that it is only applicable to CRLs and OCSP
>>> responses and that might be a bit challenging. Also change the term in
>>> 4.9.10 "validity interval" instead of "validity period".
>>>
>>> Dimitris.
>>>
>>> On 14/10/2021 7:34 μ.μ., Wayne Thayer wrote:
>>>
>>> My conclusion from this discussion is that the ballot should be updated
>>> to specify the validity interval of root CRLs and OCSP responses in days
>>> instead of months, with 397 days a SHOULD and 398 days a MUST. Ryan and
>>> Dimitris, is that correct?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Shall I also create a definition for 'validity interval' and make it
>>> applicable to CRLs and OCSP responses?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Wayne
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Oct 13, 2021 at 8:08 AM Ryan Sleevi <sleevi at google.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Oct 13, 2021 at 10:57 AM Dimitris Zacharopoulos (HARICA) <
>>> dzacharo at harica.gr> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 13/10/2021 5:17 μ.μ., Ryan Sleevi wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Oct 13, 2021 at 10:05 AM Dimitris Zacharopoulos (HARICA) <
>>> dzacharo at harica.gr> wrote:
>>>
>>> 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.
>>>
>>> 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?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Got it. Definite misunderstanding :)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> To try to rephrase:
>>>
>>>    - 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
>>>    - This convention cannot address the "inclusive" aspect; that will
>>>    need to remain appropriate for ASN.1 types (certificates, CRLs, OCSP)
>>>    - 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)
>>>
>>>
>>>    - 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)
>>>
>>>
>>>    - Procedural controls - request tokens, audit reports, etc - still
>>>    make sense to define in days
>>>
>>>
>>>    - However, the choice of period - 90 days vs 93 days, 397 days vs
>>>       398 days, 31 days vs 32 days - were intentionally selected to
>>>       *allow* CAs to have a fixed calendrical schedule, without risk of
>>>       violation.
>>>       - 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"
>>>       - 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
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 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?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Days was/is the suggestion. Months being 30 days or 31 days has the
>>> calendrical drift issue. So 367 days = 1 year/12 months.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>> Validation mailing list
>> Validation at cabforum.org
>> https://lists.cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/validation
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Validation mailing list
> Validation at cabforum.org
> https://lists.cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/validation
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.cabforum.org/pipermail/validation/attachments/20211109/5ac93231/attachment.html>