Jim,
In order to solve my two concerns, the faster is to propose a text
replacement.
I hope this will clarify my statements.
The statement in the parenthesis is not true. The issuer/serial number
is not sufficient.
I propose the following as a global replacement:
The issuer/serial number pair is the method of identification of
certificates used in [PKIXCERT]. The issuer/serial number pair may
be insufficient since two or more CAs with the same DN could exist in
in different branches from a given certification tree. The
issuer/serial number pair may be used as a hint to fetch the
certificate(s). The issuer/serial number pair can be stored in the
sid field of the SignerInfo object. In the cases where the
issuer/serial number pair is not used in the sid, it should be
placed in the issuerSerial field of the ESSCertIDv2 structure.
In some cases, hashes are used by certificate stores as a method of
indexing and retrieving certificates, hence another reason for
having the issuer/serial number pair optional.
The hash of the entire certificate allows for a verifier to check
that the certificate used in the verification process is indeed the
one the signer intended to be used. The use of the hash is
required by this structure since the detection of substituted
certificates with the same DN and serial number is based on the
fact they would map to different hash values.
Denis
I have several problems with draft-ietf-smime-escertid-01.txt.
In RFC 2634, we have section "5.4 called Signing Certificate
Attribute Definition"
The proposal is to add a section 5.4.1 to define the v2
version first (!) and then the current version (with SHA-1).
This should be done in the reverse way:
- first a section 5.4.1 to define the current version (with SHA-1),
- then a section 5.4.2 to define the v2 version.
I prefer the existing ordering. I would rather have the items that people
are to be using occur first and then obsolete items rather than the other
way around. I have not changed this.
After this restructuring, I have some problems with the text itself :
Issue 1 (page 4):
"Applications SHOULD recognize both attributes as long as
they consider SHA-1 to be sufficiently descriminating".
"descriminating" is not crystal clear for me. Would it be
possible to have the same idea expressed using a different wording ?
Done
Issue 2 (pages 4 & 5):
There is a duplication of the same paragraph (one is enough):
"The signing certificate attribute is designed to prevent
the simple
substitution and re-issue attacks, and to allow for a
restricted set
of authorization certificates to be used in verifying a signature".
I believe that not having any descriptive text at these locations and
jumping directly into the ASN.1 to be a poor choice. I have not changed
this.
Issue 3 (page 7):
"The issuer/serial number pair would therefore normally be
sufficient
to identify the correct signing certificate. (This
assumes the same
issuer name is not re-used from the set of trust anchors.)"
The assumption between the parenthesis is insufficient to
correctly identify the correct signing certificate. The
sentence needs to be changed.
I do not understand your statement. If the statement in parenthesis is
true, then it is sufficent. If the statement in the parenthesis is not
true, then issuer/serial number is not sufficent. Please re-read the text
and explain better what your problem is.
Issue 4 (page 7):
"In the cases
where the issuer/serial number pair is not used in the sid or the
issuer/serial number need to be signed, they should be
placed in the
issuerSerial field of the ESSCertIDv2 structure."
The issuer/serial number pair can be used in the sid, but
since it is unsigned, it is insufficient to correctly
identify the correct signing certificate.
So this rational is incorrect. The sentence needs to be changed.
I have no idea what you are trying to state here. My sentence and your
comment do not seem to be coming from the same context. Please re-read the
sentence.
Finally, I would propose that the next draft proposes a
global replacement
for section 5.4 to make sure that the whole section is consistent
(and that the text in it is not redondant).
I can understand your concern, however I believe that the current layout is
better and more explicit for the RFC editor.
Jim
Denis
>A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line
Internet-Drafts directories.
>This draft is a work item of the S/MIME Mail Security
Working Group of the IETF.
>
> Title : ESS Update: Adding CertID Algorithm Agility
> Author(s) : J. Schaad
> Filename : draft-ietf-smime-escertid-01.txt
> Pages : 18
> Date : 2006-4-18
>
>In the original Enhanced Security Services for S/MIME draft, a
>structure for cryptographically linking the certificate to be used in
>validation with the signature was introduced, this structure was
>hardwired to use SHA-1. This document allows for the structure to
>have algorithm agility and defines new attributes to deal with the
>updating.
>
>A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
>http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-smime-escertid-01.txt
>
>To remove yourself from the I-D Announcement list, send a message to
>i-d-announce-request(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org with the word unsubscribe in
the body of the message.
>You can also visit
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/I-D-announce
>to change your subscription settings.
>
>
>Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP. Login
with the username
>"anonymous" and a password of your e-mail address. After logging in,
>type "cd internet-drafts" and then
> "get draft-ietf-smime-escertid-01.txt".
>
>A list of Internet-Drafts directories can be found in
>http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html
>or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt
>
>
>Internet-Drafts can also be obtained by e-mail.
>
>Send a message to:
> mailserv(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org(_dot_)
>In the body type:
> "FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-smime-escertid-01.txt".
>
>NOTE: The mail server at ietf.org can return the document in
> MIME-encoded form by using the "mpack" utility. To use this
> feature, insert the command "ENCODING mime" before the "FILE"
> command. To decode the response(s), you will need
"munpack" or
> a MIME-compliant mail reader. Different MIME-compliant
mail readers
> exhibit different behavior, especially when dealing with
> "multipart" MIME messages (i.e. documents which have been
split
> up into multiple messages), so check your local documentation on
> how to manipulate these messages.
>
>
>Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader
>implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the
>Internet-Draft.
>
>Content-Type: text/plain
>Content-ID: <2006-4-18160113(_dot_)I-D(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>
>
>ENCODING mime
>FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-smime-escertid-01.txt
>
Regards,
Denis Pinkas