Subject: Re: [mile] Keeping the HashData@valid attribute?

From: "Panos Kampanakis (pkampana)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 5 Mar 2015 19:48:47 +0000

Indeed each IODEF implementation can check the validity based on the ds: X509Data field. So, +1 for dropping it also.
Panos

-----Original Message-----
From: mile [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Roman D. Danyliw
Sent: Friday, February 27, 2015 4:39 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [mile] Keeping the HashData@valid attribute?

Hello!

The -10 version of 5070bis introduced rewrote the existing ambiguous text to address Issue #29 [1], clarifying the scope of HashData@valid.  This new text in Section 3.27 is as follows:

   valid
      Optional.  Indicates whether a given certificate has a valid
      signature.  An invalid signature may be due to an invalid
      certificate chain, a signature not decoding properly, or a
      certificate contents not matching the hash.

      1.  yes.  The certificate is valid.
      2.  no.  The certificate is not valid.

At the Honolulu meeting this change prompted discussion summarized as follows in the meeting minutes [2]:

As to the HashData@valid attribute:
Q1: (Jim Shot) Why is it there?
A: (Roman Danyliw) Not sure.
A: (Jim Shot) Perhaps it should be removed
A: (Chris Inacio) Might be useful in pDNS because capturing DNS signatures is expensive and wasteful
A: (Paul Hoffman) It's an "invalid bit".  Get rid of it.
A: (David Waltermire) It was intended to convey that a certificate was found to be invalid.  Concur to drop.
A: A question as to whether to drop this attribute will be put on the list.

There has been limited discussion of this issue on the mailing list as well [3] which requested a better definition.

What does the group want to do?  Could advocacy for keeping the @valid attribute please respond to the list with better language.  For those that think we should remove it, can you also let your perspective be known on the list.  

Roman

[1] http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/mile/trac/ticket/29
[2] http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/91/minutes/minutes-91-mile
[3] http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mile/current/msg01161.html

_______________________________________________
mile mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mile