[cabf_validation] CRL Validity Interval Ballot

Tue Nov 9 17:36:46 UTC 2021

Would it make sense to put an invisible markdown comment next to these lines that should be removed in a future cleanup?

[]: # ‘Cleanup ballot – after 2025-01-01’

For certificates issued before January 1, 2025, the Certificate Subject SHALL be an Apple.  Effective January 1, 2025, the Certificate Subject SHALL be an orange.

This would make it easier to find them when cleanup ballots are being prepared.

-Tim

From: Validation <validation-bounces at cabforum.org> On Behalf Of Aaron Gable via Validation
Sent: Tuesday, November 9, 2021 11:48 AM
To: Wayne Thayer <wthayer at gmail.com>; CABforum3 <validation at cabforum.org>
Subject: Re: [cabf_validation] CRL Validity Interval Ballot

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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto:wthayer at gmail.com> > 
Sent: Monday, October 18, 2021 8:29 PM
To: Ryan Sleevi <sleevi at google.com <mailto:sleevi at google.com> >
Cc: Dimitris Zacharopoulos (HARICA) <dzacharo at harica.gr <mailto:dzacharo at harica.gr> >; CABforum3 <validation at cabforum.org <mailto:validation at cabforum.org> >; Tim Hollebeek <tim.hollebeek at digicert.com <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto:sleevi at google.com> > wrote:

On Wed, Oct 13, 2021 at 10:57 AM Dimitris Zacharopoulos (HARICA) <dzacharo at harica.gr <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto:Validation at cabforum.org> 
https://lists.cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/validation

_______________________________________________
Validation mailing list
Validation at cabforum.org <mailto: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/edf45dbb/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 4940 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.cabforum.org/pipermail/validation/attachments/20211109/edf45dbb/attachment-0001.p7s>