Subject: Re: The IETF 56 - PKIX Agenda

From: [email-masked] (Peter Gutmann)
Date: Sat, 8 Mar 2003 22:58:13 +1300

"Anders Rundgren" <[email-masked]> writes:

>In the absence of a published agenda I take the liberty to create one which I
>think could gather some interest :-)

You forgot the main event:

  What needs to be done to make PKI work?
  
  This forum will be open to all PKIX members, and will constitute a large
  pool filled knee-deep with custard [1].  Marquis of Queensberry Rules, but
  with pies substituted for gloves.  Participants are expected to provide
  appropriate clothing.  Remaining IETF members will look on in amusement or
  dismay, depending on their views on PKI.

Peter.

[1] Adrian Mitchell fans may hold the event in the Royal Albert Hall instead.

---

From: Jimi Thompson <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 8 Mar 2003 12:19:11 -0600

Hmmm.....you realize of course that we have a far more interesting 
phenomenon to study here.  It seems that certain of the PKIX member 
have been suddenly time warped back to kindergarten.  We need to do 
three things - 1) figure out how to get them back,  2) figure out how 
to make money off this thing (I'm thinking pay-per-view) and 3) here 
in the States we don't use custard, we use Jello since it's cheaper.

-- 
Thanks,

Ms. Jimi Thompson, CISSP, Rev.

"If the automobile had followed the same development cycle as the 
computer, a Rolls-Royce would today cost $100, get a million miles 
per gallon, and explode once a year, killing everyone inside." -- 
Robert Cringely

---

From: "Anders Rundgren" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 8 Mar 2003 21:33:28 +0100

Hi Jimi,
Actually we have a non-kindergarten problem as well.  That there is
no agenda unfortunately also describes the state of PKIX and its
leadership.  PKIX have many items in the workings that have not
been properly pitted against other solutions and therefore probably
never will get any real support.

One of these things is the PI (permanent identifier) draft, which is
unique in the sense that it does not support *any* existing CAs using such
schemes.  What's even more odd is that the authors and Dr. Kent are
proud of that, due to some more or less religious beliefs that the "market"
(only in Scandinavia encompassing some 10-15M subscribers) are
deliberately violating PKI standards.  That these CAs are 100%
compliant with RFC3039,  Dr. Kent claims depends on that the RFC
authors were PAID by the CAs to make this RFC compliant to their
"lousy" scheme.  But if  RFC3039 were incorrect it should never have 
passed the RFC process.  But no one said a word.  As at least one of
the RFC authors is a top scientist, I rather think that it is Dr. Kent and
his tired lot, that are simply obstructing progress for reasons unknown
to me.

Anders

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Jimi Thompson" <[email-masked]>
To: "Peter Gutmann" <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Sent: Saturday, March 08, 2003 19:19
Subject: Re: The IETF 56 - PKIX Agenda

-- 
Thanks,

---

From: Jimi Thompson <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 9 Mar 2003 20:22:52 -0600

At 9:33 PM +0100 3/8/03, Anders Rundgren wrote:
Anders & PKIX WG,

I personally don't care about the motivation or the past.  It is past 
and therefore belongs with the dust.  My point is that there seems to 
be a problem.  Instead of working together to solve it and produce a 
fine technical solution everyone can live with, there is a certain 
element on this list who is simply not being constructive.  I would 
suspect that for all of us, that our time is valuable.  Wasting a 
commodity that one can never recover seems childish to me.

I am aware that there are personal differences, however, we are all 
supposed to be adults and professionals.  Working with a group means 
making compromises - sometimes even ones that you don't personally 
care for.  It just goes with the territory.   I know it's not easy 
when the draft of the RFC doesn't have what you want in it.  It's 
painful because you worked so hard.  It annoying because you feel 
that you are right.   But I'm sure that the other people on this list 
worked hard and good valid ideas, too.  Sometimes you have to move in 
increments.  Somtimes you don't get what you want at all.  That's 
just how it goes.  It's not supposed to devolve in to personal 
attacks and sarcastic sniping.

There is a place for everything, but this isn't the place for 
"religious beliefs".  Take that to 
church/mosque/synagog/temple/whatever with you.  We're here to build 
something that the rest of the world needs.  Let's get back to the 
task at hand.  If one can't contribute and be constructive, then 
perhaps its time to "sit this one out".

>To: "Peter Gutmann" <[email-masked]>; 
><[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>

-- 
Thanks,

---

From: "Anders Rundgren" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 07:15:51 +0100

Jimi,
You are absolutely right, this is childish, but you also do not have
the full background to this long-time feud.

I honestly regret the personal attack on Steve & Co which actually
was NOT even meant to reach a larger audience (you extended the
reply-list and I did not notice that).   Steve, are you listening?

Regarding the PI/RFC3039 story it is unfortunately the case that
 these efforts are on completely separate routes in spite of being
natural "companions".  The PI authors who soon have been
toiling with the draft for 3 years,  have not presented any rationale
for not aligning their effort to RFC3039 and existing practices.

It seems like a task for the WG-chairs to settle this score once for all.
Does the following line in RFC3039 regarding "serialNumber"
violate PKI(X) standards?

   1] It MAY contain a number or code assigned by the CA or an
       identifier assigned by a government or civil authority

As PI is close to final call, RFC3039 is subject to a revision, and
there is a PI "competitor" in the workings that exploits the current
practice and RFC3039, it is really "now or never".

Anders

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Jimi Thompson" <[email-masked]>
To: "Anders Rundgren" <[email-masked]>; "Peter Gutmann" <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Sent: Monday, March 10, 2003 03:22
Subject: Re: The IETF 56 - PKIX Agenda

-- 
Thanks,

---

From: Stefan Santesson <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 09:52:01 +0100

Anders,

Sorry, but I couldn't figure out from this message what the problem with 
RFC 3039 are.
Could you reveal them? (Short list in condensed form is OK)

/Stefan

> >[1] Adrian Mitchell fans may hold the event in the Royal Albert Hall 

_____________________________
Stefan Santesson,  Retrospekt AB
http://www.retrospekt.com
+46-706 443351

---

From: "Anders Rundgren" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 10:42:22 +0100

Stefan,

If you read the PI draft there is no mentioning of RFC3039 or existing
practices for representing permanent identifiers.    The culprit
is the following line describing "serialNumber":

   "It MAY contain a number or code assigned by the CA or an
     identifier assigned by a government or civil authority"

This is also one of the existing practices.

However, in various messages, the PI practices as well as RFC3039
is held as being a violation of PKI(X) standards and therefore should
be deprecated.

Note: I don't think Denis and the others have the guts to require
a deprecation in the upcoming RFC3039 revision, they sort of
prefer to make incompatible RFCs instead to show their dismay.

That is their way to play in the PKIX kindergarten, I have mine as
somebody noted :-)

I prefer setting the record straight and go on, to hopefully be
able to enter the PKIX primary school some day...

Anders

----- Original Message -----
From: "Stefan Santesson" <[email-masked]>
To: "Anders Rundgren" <[email-masked]>; "Peter Gutmann" <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>; "Jimi Thompson"
<[email-masked]>
Sent: Monday, March 10, 2003 09:52
Subject: RFC 3039 problems - Was: Re: The IETF 56 - PKIX Agenda

Anders,

/Stefan

---

From: Stefan Santesson <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 11:36:39 +0100

Anders,

Just so I get you right.

The conclusion is that in your opinion there is no problem with RFC 3039 
with regard to this.

/Stefan

At 10:42 2003-03-10 +0100, Anders Rundgren wrote:
>To: "Anders Rundgren" <[email-masked]>; "Peter Gutmann" 
><[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>; "Jimi Thompson"
><[email-masked]>

---

From: Stefan Santesson <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 11:36:39 +0100

Anders,

Just so I get you right.

Personally I have had a hard time see the problem with this. This was 
sorted out many years ago and X.520 was even updated to clarify that it was 
appropriate to accommodate this use, i.e. assigning identifiers to humans. 
(X.520: "The Serial Number attribute type specifies an identifier, the 
serial number of an object. ")

/Stefan

---

From: Paul Hoffman / IMC <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 08:19:41 -0800

>the full background to this long-time feud.

The background doesn't matter. If I find yourself about to write 
something childish, and I am an adult, it is my responsibility to not 
finish it.

>reply-list and I did not notice that).

It is not clear that sending personal attacks to individuals is that 
much better than sending them to the whole mailing list. In the 
latter case, it wastes more people's time, but in the former case, it 
causes the person being attacked to wonder why he/she should be doing 
this.

If we want effective official and unofficial leadership in the WG, we 
shouldn't be sending personal attacks to individuals or to the whole 
WG.

--Paul Hoffman, Director
--Internet Mail Consortium

---

From: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 09:41:23 -0800

Paul - as someone else that has had run-ins with the management of
PKIX  - what Anders commentary was relevant to was the
operational integrity of this WG and the people that either impugn that or
make it real.

The issue is not Steve, the issue is that there is no change in the
management of this WG and has been none for so long that claims that the
existing chairs are squatters are getting harder and harder to refute. In
fact without change through the management of the WG, there will come a time
when even the most stupefied idiot will see this as well and at that point
the rest of the WG starts to look like a bunch of skinned fish.

This WG like all other standards body WG's must espouse itself to the higher
vision of fair play, not in getting a select few protocols to elevated
status and that is the net-net of it.

As to intentional or unintentional flames, they happen and that's life.

As to what to do about the problem - I would propose that unless PKIX can
find new people willing to stand as its chair that it has become a
"permanent edifice", and that it needs to be shutdown and its projects
shuttled to other WG's for completion.

Todd

---

From: "Anders Rundgren" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 19:06:00 +0100

Stefan,

>The conclusion is that in your opinion there is no problem with
>RFC 3039 with regard to this.

>Personally I have had a hard time see the problem with this.
> This was sorted out many years ago and X.520 as even updated to
>clarify that it was appropriate to accommodate this use, i.e. assigning
>identifiers to humans. (X.520: "The Serial Number attribute
>type specifies an identifier, the serial number of an object. ")

I know this but based on private mails the PI advocates still
think this a bad use of serialNumber.   As you probably don't care
about PI you have nothing to worry about.

In case you DO care about PI, please show me how YOU would
apply PI to the following RFC3039 compliant "Swedish" certificate:

DN: CN=John Doe, serialNumber=676767666767, C=SE

Anders

---

From: Stephen Kent <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 13:21:34 -0500

Todd,

We've had this discussion before, but for the edification of 

>operational integrity of this WG and the people that either impugn that or

As I noted in my response to Anders, people who do not contribute 
constructively to WG activities are in a poor position to complain.

>the rest of the WG starts to look like a bunch of skinned fish.

Over time you have been of two minds o this topic. Sometime you state 
that it's not about me, but at other times you have made it clear 
that I, as an individual, am the target of your complaints. In any 
case, the IESG is empowered to make the determination of when there 
isn a need to change WG leadership. Involuntary changes have taken 
place in the past, but there have also been examples of one person 
chairing a WG for a very long time.

>status and that is the net-net of it.

All standards bodies with which I am familiar make choices about what 
work they pursue and which proposals they endorse when there are 
competing proposals, Your notion of fair play, as articulated 
recently on the POISED mailing list, calls for the IETF to publish 
anything that it put before it, which is not at all consistent with 
the operation of other standards bodies. If a standards body fails to 
make architectural choices, the result is a proliferation of 
standards that fail to ensure interoperability, and that is the 
opposite of what a standards body should do.

>As to intentional or unintentional flames, they happen and that's life.

True

>shuttled to other WG's for completion.

The IESG makes the determination of when a WG should cease operation. 
You have tried to persuade them to change the leadership of this WG 
in the past, to no avail, and then  you tried to persuade folks to 
change the operating procedures of the IETF, having failed in your 
original quest.

---

From: Denis Pinkas <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 17:57:07 +0100

Anders,

Since you asked, here is a short TECHNICAL reply.

> DN: CN=John Doe, serialNumber=676767666767, C=SE

serialNumber=676767666767 is used to make the difference between two 
entities that otherwise would have the same name, i.e. DN: CN=John Doe, C=SE.

Using such a large number is allowed but not strictly needed, since if there 
are four people with the attributes DN: CN=John Doe, C=SE then using serial 
numbers from 1 to 4 would be sufficient. I do kown that in fact 676767666767 
would allow to uniquely identify the individual, but this is not the 
semantics of that attribute.

However placing 676767666767 is the PI (with a Assigner Authority like 
"Swedish XXX" defined using an OID) does allow to uniquely identify the 
individual, irrespective of its DN.

So there is no contradiction.

Denis

---

From: "Anders Rundgren" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 20:39:33 +0100

Denis,

A crux with your suggestion is that it is correct but "looks" strange
and leads to confusion.   To use a nonsense disambiguer like "3"
("why do you call me John Doe the 3:rd?") when there already is a 
known and meaningful "676767666767" leads to the effective
duplication of this information in most real PI-cases.

This means that CAs have little motives for ever dropping their
RFC3039-variant of "PI".  And new CAs will likely also follow
RFC3039 due to the same issue.

Since most of these permanent-identifier-using CAs only support
a single name-space (given the non-utility of policy-extensions in
real-world software), the motives for adding the other part of
the PI-information also becomes limited.  Particularly as RPs
are equally singular in most cases.

And how are RPs supposed to know when they can drop support
for the RFC3039 way of doing things?

That's why I rather early, suggested that we together, should bring
out another scheme, where high-level PKI objects as constituted by
CA/EE, would be made conformant to the schemes used in most other
parts of the IT-industry, i.e. self-describing to some extent.  

Such a scheme would be a true companion to RFC3039 instead of a
"competitor" regarding "where to stuff identify information".

====================================================
    If the Internet had reached the same technical maturity level as PKI
    as represented by RFC3280, we would still not have had DNS,
    but rather be fully occupied tweaking "hosts" files.
====================================================

>semantics of that attribute.

This is though specified as an option in RFC3039 (although the text is
not that well written). 

Anders

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Denis Pinkas" <[email-masked]>
To: "Anders Rundgren" <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>; "Stefan Santesson" <[email-masked]>
Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2003 17:57
Subject: Re: RFC 3039 problems - Was: Re: The IETF 56 - PKIX Agenda

Anders,

Denis

---

From: Stefan Santesson <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 21:37:11 +0100

At 17:57 2003-03-11 +0100, Denis Pinkas wrote:
 >I do kown that in fact 676767666767 would allow to uniquely identify the 
individual, but this is not the semantics of that attribute.

Denis,

Where is the semantics broken?

Who says that a serial number need to start with 1 and be sequential with 
increment = 1

You have only to look at most software products, TV sets or similar to see 
another truth.
676767666767 is a perfectly fine serial number to me.

/Stefan

---

From: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 14:53:28 -0800

Stefan - the key issue is that SN's are only comparable to SN's issued by
the same instance or ones that are correlated between instances. The SN
itself is a component of the Policy Control process and so it is only
relevant to like instances, which is why timestamps are so important - since
they in many senses represent portable SN's - or ones that are easily
compared between machines.

Todd

---

From: Stefan Santesson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2003 00:27:32 +0100

Todd,

Is there anything in this statment that reveals any problem with the way 
RFC 3039 defines use of the SN attribute?

/Stefan

---

From: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 19:13:30 -0800

----- Original Message -----
From: "Stefan Santesson" <[email-masked]>
To: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>; "Denis Pinkas"
<[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2003 3:27 PM
Subject: Re: RFC 3039 problems - Was: Re: The IETF 56 - PKIX Agenda

> RFC 3039 defines use of the SN attribute?

No of course not - I wasnt responding to whether there were multiple and
ambiguous uses of the serialNumber attribute in 3039. I was responding to
why one likely should start with one or some known state and increment
upwards monotonically as part of the SN process.

---

From: Denis Pinkas <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2003 11:01:05 +0100

Anders,

> duplication of this information in most real PI-cases.

Extract from RFC 3039:

    The serialNumber attribute type SHALL, when present, be used to
    differentiate between names where the subject field would otherwise
    be identical.  This attribute has no defined semantics beyond
    ensuring uniqueness of subject names.  It MAY contain a number or
    code assigned by the CA or an identifier assigned by a government or
    civil authority.  It is the CA's responsibility to ensure that the
    serialNumber is sufficient to resolve any subject name collisions.

"3" or "676767666767" are both valid values, but have no defined semantics 
beyond ensuring uniqueness of subject names. The SN attribute cannot be used 
in isolation to make an access control decision, since, from this 
definition, it is perfectly allowed for a CA to issue certificates for 
different entities that include the same SN value.

I believe that your question has been answered.

Denis

---

From: Denis Pinkas <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2003 11:03:31 +0100

Stefan,

>  >I do kown that in fact 676767666767 would allow to uniquely identify 
> the individual, but this is not the semantics of that attribute.

> Where is the semantics broken?

The semantics (extracted from RF 3039) is:

It is not broken.

> Who says that a serial number need to start with 1 and be sequential 
> with increment = 1

Nobody.

Denis

> You have only to look at most software products, TV sets or similar to 
> see another truth.

---

From: Stephen Kent <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2003 18:20:30 -0500

>DN: CN=John Doe, serialNumber=676767666767, C=SE
A more appropriate structure for the Subject DN you cite above would be:

	DN: (CN=John Doe, serialNumber=676767666767), C=SE

The SET of common name and serial number is an appropriate terminal 
RDN, based on the tree structure model that underlies X.500 names.

I think we all agree that it is legitimate to have a Subject DN of 
the form cited here. The problem you cited, long ago, is that there 
is no way for an RP to know that this specific DN is also a PI. My 
recollection is that you originally proposed a structure to be 
inserted into a CA cert to indicate that the Subject DNs were PIs. 
However, the proposed structure was deficient, i.e., it did not 
accommodate a wide range of legitimate DN structures. Thus, it was 
not a good approach for a standard.

You repeatedly point to the notion of "existing practices" and 
complain that PKIX standards do not always encompass these practices. 
That's correct. If an existing practice is a good one, one that 
scales well and does not conflict with other PKIX standards, then I 
don't think PKIX has any problem with embracing it, after suitable WG 
evaluation and process.  But, if the practice is a bad one, e.g., it 
has clear technical flaws, then the fact that is is widely used is 
NOT a good basis for endorsing it in a PKIX standard.  That is the 
basis by which we have operated, and I expect we will continue to 
operate.  It is NOT the purpose of this WG to endorse bad ideas put 
forth by vendors, irrespective of market share.

Steve