W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org > April to June 2002

Re: CRL in DSig interop test set

From: merlin <merlin@baltimore.ie>
Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2002 22:10:02 +0100
To: Ari Kermaier <arik@phaos.com>
Cc: w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org
Message-Id: <20020419211002.A964443BEA@yog-sothoth.ie.baltimore.com>

The reason for that example (in fact, all those X.509 examples)
is that I was under the impression that this working group was
required to demonstrate interoperability among all of our defined
syntax, which includes X509CRL. I don't think that inclusion of a
CRL is particularly useful; it is just part of our syntax.

RFC 2026, 4.1.2 Draft Standard (presuming that is our goal)

 The requirement for at least two independent and interoperable
 implementations applies to all of the options and features of the
 specification.  In cases in which one or more options or features
 have not been demonstrated in at least two interoperable
 implementations, the specification may advance to the Draft Standard
 level only if those options or features are removed.


>Dear All,
>In the new interop test set, merlin-xmldsig-twenty-three, there is one test 
>signature that troubles me a little. The one called 
>signature-x509-crt-crl.xml implies signature validation processing that 
>isn't really described by the specification. It's all well and good that 
>the X509Data element can be used to transport a CRL. However, actually 
>using the CRL should be part of certificate path validation, rather than 
>signature validation per se. I mean, we might as well be testing whether 
>DSig implementations can correctly parse an AuthorityInfoAccess extension 
>in the certificate and execute an OCSP lookup based on the contents. So, 
>IMHO, deciding to check a certificate against a CRL is application-specific 
>functionality that shouldn't really be introduced into interop testing for 
>the DSig spec in general.
>Ari Kermaier    arik@phaos.com
>Senior Software Engineer
>Phaos Technology Corp.    http://www.phaos.com/

The information contained in this message is confidential and is intended
for the addressee(s) only.  If you have received this message in error or
there are any problems please notify the originator immediately.  The 
unauthorised use, disclosure, copying or alteration of this message is 
strictly forbidden. Baltimore Technologies plc will not be liable for
direct, special, indirect or consequential damages arising from alteration
of the contents of this message by a third party or as a result of any 
virus being passed on.

This footnote confirms that this email message has been swept for Content
Security threats, including computer viruses.
Received on Friday, 19 April 2002 17:10:07 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:21:37 UTC