[cabf_validation] CRL Validity Interval Ballot

[Wayne Thayer]

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.
>>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.cabforum.org/pipermail/validation/attachments/20211015/ebb56648/attachment.html>