[cabf_validation] CRL Validity Interval Ballot
Dimitris Zacharopoulos (HARICA)
dzacharo at harica.gr
Wed Oct 13 14:57:23 UTC 2021
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)
> o 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
> o 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.
> o 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"
> o 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?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.cabforum.org/pipermail/validation/attachments/20211013/753366d5/attachment.html>
More information about the Validation
mailing list