Hi Hannes,

 

This is not about my personal beliefs. RFC 7525 looks at certificate revocation in the context of TLS (and not only TLS for Web use but the broader ecosystem) and recommends OCSP and OCSP Stapling as the best available techniques to enable effective certificate revocation, but with caveats. It’s been more than 6 years since the RFC was published, and we are reviewing our recommendations, which may or may not still be valid.

 

Thanks,

                Yaron

 

From: Hannes Tschofenig <hannes.tschofe...@arm.com>
Date: Thursday, January 20, 2022 at 12:00
To: Yaron Sheffer <yaronf.i...@gmail.com>, u...@ietf.org <u...@ietf.org>, tls@ietf.org <tls@ietf.org>
Subject: RE: OCSP in RFC7525bis

Hi Yaron,

 

Where do you believe OCSP will be a good fit and why?

 

Ciao

Hannes

 

From: TLS <tls-boun...@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Yaron Sheffer
Sent: Wednesday, January 19, 2022 3:57 PM
To: u...@ietf.org; tls@ietf.org
Subject: [TLS] OCSP in RFC7525bis

 

Hi,

 

RFC 7525 (the TLS BCP) has a section [1] with “weak” recommendations to use OCSP and OCSP stapling. We are changing these recommendations [2] in view of OCSP stapling in TLS 1.3 and the obsolescence of RFC 6961.

 

But this raises a larger question: many client-side implementations soft-fail if they don’t get an OCSP response within the handshake, i.e. they just ignore the problem. As far as we understand, this makes OCSP stapling completely ineffective for what it’s trying to solve.

 

So for the new BCP, we have three options:

1.      Add a SHOULD-level requirement (for TLS 1.3 implementations, possibly also TLS 1.2 implementations) to fail the handshake if the OCSP response is missing or invalid. (As far as we can tell, RFC 8446 is silent on this.)

2.      Remove the whole discussion of OCSP, saying that in its current form it’s not adding value.

3.      Maintain the status quo, where many people implement OCSP on the server side, but clients rarely benefit.

 

We would be grateful for feedback based on implementation experience. In particular if you have quantitative data on the use or quality of OCSP that’s more recent than Chung18 [3], that would be very useful.

 

Thanks,

                Peter, Thomas and Yaron

 

PS: apologies for cross-posting.

 

 

[1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc7525#section-6.5

[2] https://github.com/yaronf/I-D/pull/279/files

[3] https://cbw.sh/static/pdf/chung-imc18.pdf

 

IMPORTANT NOTICE: The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to any other person, use it for any purpose, or store or copy the information in any medium. Thank you.

_______________________________________________
TLS mailing list
TLS@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls

Reply via email to