Re: A plan for PKIX, LDAPv3, and ;binary

[mcs@netscape.com (Mark C Smith)]

I think this is an excellent plan and the best choice given the 
situation. The installed base of LDAPv3 users will be very grateful 
(which is to say they won't kick and scream, because they will feel 
minimal pain).

--
Mark Smith
Netscape Directory Product Development
My words are my own, not my employer's.


wpolk@nist.gov wrote:
> Folks,
>
> Three of the four Chairs (Tim Polk, Bob Morgan, Kurt Zeilenga) of the LDAPbis 
> and PKIX WGs and one of the document authors (Steven Legg) met  in Atlanta to 
> discuss LDAPv3 – PKIX issues, and we have a way forward regarding X.509 
> certificate schema and ;binary transfer option.
>
> The PKIX WG will draft a new technical specification describing the 
> Certificate, Certificate List and Certificate Pair syntaxes, the value 
> preservation requirements for attributes of these syntaxes, and the ;binary 
> transfer option used in requesting and transferring attributes of these 
> syntaxes.  (Attributes of these syntaxes include userCerificate, cACertificate, 
> certificateRevocationList, authorityRevocationList, and crossCertificatePair.)  
> The LDAPbis WG will provide any support the PKIX WG requires/requests.
>
> (1) Upon review of the PKIX-LDAP “survey” we see a critical mass of PKI clients 
> and LDAP servers that achieve interoperability using LDAPv3 with the ;binary 
> option.  As these clients appear to be in the majority, we believe the best 
> approach is to maintain this option for the transfer of X.509 certificates and 
> CRLs.  Since this is the behavior documented in RFCs 2251, 2252, and 2256 (as 
> well as the overarching 3377) this will require the least changes to the LDAPv3 
> specifications as well.
>
> (2) Per previous LDAPBIS discussions, the ;binary option need not be maintained 
> as a general-purpose LDAP feature.  There is no need to hold up PKIX syntax and 
> schema for LDAPBIS to define the general behavior of that feature.  This option 
> will be defined in the PKIX syntax and schema document.
>
> (3) The ;binary option as originally defined did not fully meet PKIX 
> requirements anyway.  The real requirements are that these attribute values (a) 
> be stored on the server in the same form that it was received in; and (b) are 
> returned to the requester in the same form as received.  The PKIX syntax and 
> schema for LDAPv3 will impose these new value preservation requirements on LDAP 
> servers; this is consistent with the current LDAPBIS “Directory Information 
> Models” draft.
>
> (4) The lack of a defined LDAP-specific encoding for Certificate, Certificate 
> List and Certificate Pair syntaxes is a problem, as a small percentage of 
> implementations transfer these attributes without the ;binary option.  Rather 
> than be silent, we suggest that the PKIX syntax and schema document state the 
> LDAP-specific encoding used in transfer without the ;binary option but 
> deprecate its use.  This LDAP-specific encoding has the same transfer 
> representation as when the attribute is transferred with the ;binary option.
>
> We believe this represents a straightforward path forward that meets the PKIX 
> interoperability requirements while being most compatible with current PKI 
> behavior, current LDAPv3 standards, and upcoming LDAPBIS documents.
>
> Thank you,
>
> Tim Polk, RL "Bob" Morgan, Kurt Zeilenga, and Steven Legg