[x500standard] Re: Certificate definitions
- From: "Santosh Chokhani" <SChokhani@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <x500standard@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "ietf-pkix" <ietf-pkix@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 9 Apr 2009 11:35:52 -0400
Erik,
See responses inline.
________________________________
From: x500standard-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:x500standard-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Erik Andersen
Sent: Thursday, April 09, 2009 11:26 AM
To: x500standard@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; 'ietf-pkix'
Subject: [x500standard] Re: Certificate definitions
Hi Denis,
It is a little dangerous not to respond to my comments. Due to the
apparent inactivity of people, I have the power to produce Defect Reports,
produce Draft Technical Corrigenda, run them through both the ISO and ITU-T
approval process and finally integrate them into the next edition of X.500
(incl. X.509) without being stopped by anyone (except for Jean-Paul Lemaire).
I believe you misunderstood my diagram. It may be a little confusing.
Let me express myself without the diagram.
The set of certificates is the union of the set of public-key
certificates and the set of attribute certificates.
The set of end-entity certificates is the union of public-key
certificates issued to end-entities and the set of attribute certificates
issued to end-entities. However, X.509 is a little confusing here as the term
end-entity certificate is sometimes meant to be just public-key certificates
issued to end-entities, so the term end-entity certificate has two meanings.
The set of public-key certificates is the union of the set of
end-entity (public-key) certificates and the set of CA certificates.
The set of attribute certificates is the union of the set of end-entity
(attribute) certificates and the set of AA certificates.
The set of authority certificates is the union of the set CA
certificates and the set of AA certificates.
The set of CA certificates is the union of the set of self-issued
(public-key) certificates and the set cross certificates. The latter is a
little confusing, as a cross certificate can also be an attribute certificate.
[Santosh]: The above paragraph has two inaccuracies. Since not all CA
certificates are called cross certificates, set of CA certificates are
self-issued, cross certificate, and subordinate CA certificates. (I wish we
had not distinguished between cross certificates and subordinate CA
certificates in the first place). Also note that a cross certificate can not
be attribute certificate. I don't see an AA cross certificate in RFC 3281 or
in X.509
I am avoiding here to use the term "user attribute", but believe it is
supposed to mean a public-key certificate issued to an end-entity.
Whenever an innocent reader sees the term "certificate", he/she is
entitled to believe it can either be a public-key certificate. It may not
always be clear from the context what is meant.
Whenever an innocent us reader see the term "end-entity certificate",
he/she is entitled to believe it is either a public key certificate or an
attribute certificate issued to an end-entity.
Whenever an innocent us reader see the term "cross-certificate",
he/she is entitled to believe it is either a public key certificate or an
attribute certificate.
[Santosh]: See prior comment.
My proposal was only to clear-up the terminology and to use the
terminology consistent in the text of X.509. Trying to do the latter may raise
a number of detailed questions when the meaning is not absolutely clear from
the context.
Erik Andersen
Andersen's L-Service
Elsevej 48, DK-3500 Vaerloese
Denmark
Mobile: +45 2097 1490
email: era@xxxxxxx
www.x500.eu
www.x500standard.com
-----Original Message-----
From: x500standard-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:x500standard-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Denis Pinkas
Sent: 3. april 2009 17:33
To: x500 list; ietf-pkix
Subject: [x500standard] Re: Certificate definitions
Eric,
Silence does not mean approval.
It may mean that the corrections are so numerous that it would take too
long to respond
and that people do not have that time available at the moment.
e.g.: an End-entity attribute certificate is not linked to a
public-key certificate.
a cross-certificate is not linked to an AA certificate.
an Authority Certificate is not linked to an Attribute
Certificate.
This is only a start ...
Denis
----- Message reçu -----
De : owner-ietf-pkix
À : x500standard,'PKIX'
Date : 2009-04-03, 17:00:01
Sujet : RE: [x500standard] Certificate definitions
I take silence as approval.
Erik Andersen
Andersen's L-Service
Elsevej 48, DK-3500 Vaerloese
Denmark
Mobile: +45 2097 1490
email: era@xxxxxxx
www.x500.eu
www.x500standard.com
-----Original Message-----
From: x500standard-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:x500standard-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Erik Andersen
Sent: 1. april 2009 14:40
To: Directory list; PKIX
Subject: [x500standard] Certificate definitions
Hi
I got a number of responses on user certificates, but quite
little that actually answered my question.
I have tried to dig a little bit more in X.509 to get hold of
the terminology and then produced below figure. I will not comment all the
boxes.
I will like you to comments as to the correctness of above
figure.
The end-entity certificate is not defined in the definition
clause. However it is used widely in the main text. It is mentioned the first
time in clause 7 as a public-key certificate. There are several other places
where it is a public-key certificate. In 15.5.2.4 is used in the context of
attribute certificates. The conclusion must be that an end-entity certificate
can either be a end-entity public-key certificate or an end-entity attribute
certificate. However, in most places, it is implied that we only talks about
public-key certificates. For veterans, this is not a major problem, but
new-comers may get confused. Anyway, I thing our specifications should be clear
and not subject to interpretation. RFC 5280 does not use the term at all. It
seems just to use the term "certificate" as a synonym for "end-entrity public
key certificate".
The "User Certificate" is not defined in X.509, but is wide
used. It seems to be a synonym for "end-entrity public key certificate". It is
also used in X.511. RFC 5280 uses the term once without differenting it from
just "certificate".
The term "cross-certificate" should probably also be qualified.
I suggest to add in X.509 definitions for:
"end-entity public-key certificate"
"user certificate" as a synonym for "end-entity public-key
certificate"
"end-entity attribute certificate"
The X.509 text should be updated to make use of these
definitions.
X.509 has four attribute types for holding certificates.
UserCertificate: For end-entity public-key certificates
cAcertificate: For CA certificates
attributeCertificateAttribute: For end-entity attribute
certificates
aACertificate: For AA Certificates
Any comments?
Erik Andersen
Andersen's L-Service
Elsevej 48, DK-3500 Vaerloese
Denmark
Mobile: +45 2097 1490
email: era@xxxxxxx
www.x500.eu
www.x500standard.com
Other related posts:
