Subject: [Trans] [trans] #126 (rfc6962-bis): text leaves open the possibility that a submitter might not verify the returned SCT

From: "trans issue tracker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 2015 21:42:25 -0000

#126: text leaves open the possibility that a submitter might not verify the
returned SCT

 From https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-trans-
 rfc6962-bis-10#section-3:

    The submitter SHOULD validate the returned SCT as
    described in Section 9.2 if they understand its format and they
    intend to use it directly in a TLS handshake or to construct a
    certificate.

 This wording begs the question of when a submitter ought NOT verify the
 returned SCT.

-- 
-------------------------+-------------------------------------------------
 Reporter:               |      Owner:  draft-ietf-trans-
  [email-masked]   |  [email-masked]
     Type:  defect       |     Status:  new
 Priority:  major        |  Milestone:
Component:  rfc6962-bis  |    Version:
 Severity:  -            |   Keywords:
-------------------------+-------------------------------------------------

Ticket URL: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/trans/trac/ticket/126>
trans <http://tools.ietf.org/trans/>

---

From: "trans issue tracker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 2015 10:57:36 -0000

Comment (by [email-masked]):

 I can't think of any case where a submitter MUST NOT or SHOULD NOT verify
 a returned SCT.

 If we don't have anything to say, why attempt to say it?

 Severity:  -            |  Resolution:
 Keywords:               |

Ticket URL: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/trans/trac/ticket/126#comment:1>
trans <http://tools.ietf.org/trans/>

---

From: "trans issue tracker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 2015 14:52:00 -0000

Comment (by [email-masked]):

 I agree with Rob.
 Cases where a submitter may not need to verify the returned SCT is when
 it's submitting certificates for the purpose of making them known
 publicly. This is clearly covered by the current text.

 David, was there a particular case in mind where the standard should
 specify a submitter ought NOT to verify the returned SCT?

Ticket URL: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/trans/trac/ticket/126#comment:2>
trans <http://tools.ietf.org/trans/>

---

From: "trans issue tracker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 2015 21:33:07 -0000

Comment (by [email-masked]):

 Sorry, I must have missed the discussion of that case. Could you point me
 to the text that talks about that case?

 No, I think verification is great. I just think that this "SHOULD" should
 be accompanied by an explanation of the consequences of not performing the
 verification. That way implementors will be able to make an informed
 decision whether or not to verify an SCT in a particular case. Or, if
 there's no case in which verification should be skipped, then the "SHOULD"
 should be a "MUST".

Ticket URL: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/trans/trac/ticket/126#comment:3>
trans <http://tools.ietf.org/trans/>