Valery: >>> Sorry for being nerd, but literally reading what is written in the draft ,I >>> believe that the following sequence of >> actions is valid: >>> >>> 1. A new version of a prefixlen file appears >>> 2. EE wants to sign this file, but it decides not to request a new >>> certificate and to use an existing one instead >>> (because of SHOULD) >>> >>> And another presumably valid sequence of actions: >>> >>> 1. A new version of a prefixlen file appears >>> 2. EE wants to sign this file and requests a new certificate from CA >>> 3. CA issues a new certificate (MUST) >>> 4. EE ignores the new certificate and uses the old one to sign the new file >>> (because of SHOULD) >>> >>> Are these sequences of actions acceptable? >> >> First, the CA and the EE are not as separate, but rather one program that >> does both functions, often with private >> keys stored in the same HSM. > > OK, thank you for clarification. > >> Second, you are correct about the SHOULD. This is not the preferred >> approach, but it works even when the same >> private key signs more than one prefix file. > > I agree, but in this case this is not "one-time-use". > >>> If yes, then the text above (the new text) means (in my understanding) that >>> the CA MUST always issue a new EE certificate if it is requested to (it is >>> obvious, IMHO, but let it be), >>> but the EE is free (in some situations) not to request a new certificate >>> (or is free to ignore the new certificate) and use an old one instead, >>> but generally it is preferable to request a new certificate. >>> >>> Is this interpretation correct? >> >> Correct. I do not see a concern. > > Fine, I'm glad I understood the text correctly. > >>> If yes, then it would be helpful to at least hint what these situations >>> might be. >>> And in this case "one-time-use" of certificates is not guaranteed. >> >> Recall the revised paragraph: >> >>> The Certification Authority (CA) The CA MUST >>> generate a new End Entity (EE) certificate for each signing of a >>> particular prefixlen file. The private key associated with the >>> EE certificate SHOULD sign only one prefixlen file. That is, >>> a new key pair SHOULD be generated >>> for each new version of a particular prefixlen file. >>> The EE certificate used in this fashion is termed a "one-time-use" >>> EE certificate (see Section 3 of [RFC6487]). >> >> I am not sure what more to say... > > We obviously disagree that with the current "SHOULDs" this can be > generally termed as "one-time-use of EE certificate" (at least in my reading > of RFC 6487). > > But since this is only a remark, I can see it as a nit, not as an issue. > > Thank you for the explanation.
If the SHOULDs are followed, then the EE provate key is "one-time-use". Russ _______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
