[cabf_validation] CRL Validity Interval Ballot

[Ryan Sleevi]

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.
>>>
>>
>>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.cabforum.org/pipermail/validation/attachments/20211015/847d5007/attachment-0001.html>