[cabf_validation] CRL Validity Interval Ballot

[Wayne Thayer]

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.
>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.cabforum.org/pipermail/validation/attachments/20211031/10dd0244/attachment.html>