> I'm not sure I follow? A SHOULD NOT is not any more onerous, as it's not a 
> prohibition.

 

BR 7.1.2.2 (g) currently reads:

“For Subordinate CA Certificates that will be used to issue TLS certificates, 
the value id-kp-serverAuth [RFC5280] MUST be present. The value 
id-kp-clientAuth [RFC5280] MAY be present”.

 

The current proposed Mozilla Policy text essentially changes the MAY to a 
SHOULD NOT. While not a concrete prohibition, it is certainly more 
onerous/strict than the BRs. As you know and from the RFC 2119 text you quoted, 
“SHOULD NOTs” are indicative of some practice that Root Programs generally 
frown upon, which is why I brought this up.

 

Thanks,

Corey

 

From: [email protected] <[email protected]> On 
Behalf Of Ryan Sleevi
Sent: Monday, November 1, 2021 3:38 PM
To: Corey Bonnell <[email protected]>
Cc: Ben Wilson <[email protected]>; Ryan Sleevi <[email protected]>; 
[email protected] <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Policy 2.8: MRSP Issue #228: Clarify technically-constrained 
sub-CA EKUs

 

 

 

On Mon, Nov 1, 2021 at 3:34 PM Corey Bonnell <[email protected] 
<mailto:[email protected]> > wrote:

> I'm accepting your suggestion and phrasing it, "CAs SHOULD NOT include more 
> than a single KeyPurposeID in the EKU extension." 

 

This is quite a bit more onerous than the current BRs, which explicitly allow 
for id-kp-clientAuth to be included alongside id-kp-serverAuth. Is the 
deprecation of id-kp-clientAuth KP in serverAuth TLS certificates intentional?

 

I'm not sure I follow? A SHOULD NOT is not any more onerous, as it's not a 
prohibition.

 

>From RFC 2119, which Mozilla policy incorporates by reference

 

SHOULD NOT   This phrase, or the phrase "NOT RECOMMENDED" mean that
   there may exist valid reasons in particular circumstances when the
   particular behavior is acceptable or even useful, but the full
   implications should be understood and the case carefully weighed

   before implementing any behavior described with this label. 

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> " 
group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to [email protected] 
<mailto:[email protected]> .
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/a/mozilla.org/d/msgid/dev-security-policy/CAErg%3DHG_uZACuiDQNM9ubqctOv5er9h3Y3nQQy7CaoanTwBF1Q%40mail.gmail.com
 
<https://groups.google.com/a/mozilla.org/d/msgid/dev-security-policy/CAErg%3DHG_uZACuiDQNM9ubqctOv5er9h3Y3nQQy7CaoanTwBF1Q%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>
 .

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"[email protected]" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to [email protected].
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/a/mozilla.org/d/msgid/dev-security-policy/DM6PR14MB2186BF306ACA5C95816A426B928A9%40DM6PR14MB2186.namprd14.prod.outlook.com.

Attachment: smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature

Reply via email to