[Date Prev][Date Next]
Re: OpenLDAP Support for cpCPS objectClass??
Tony Earnshaw wrote:
Patrick Patterson skrev, on 25-02-2008 21:25:
I am working on a PKI project, and would like to be able to use
OpenLDAP, however, the certificate policy that we have to conform to
mandates that CA entries be a member of pkiCA and cpCps auxiliary
object classes. Now, the pkiCA requirement is easy, as it looks like
OpenLDAP supports that just fine, however, I'm wondering if cpCPS is
able to be supported.
I guess my question is twofold:
Have the syntax checking routines mandated for the cpCps object class
Strictly speaking an object class doesn't have any matching rules
assigned to it. You're probably talking about the related
attribute types and their matching rules.
(I presume out of ITU-T X.509 chapter 11) been implemented in
Matching rule 'objectIdentifierFirstComponentMatch' for attribute
type 'certificatePolicy' seems to be implemented in OpenLDAP
2.4.x. Not sure about 2.3.x, check the subschema yourself.
and if so, does anyone happen to have a schema file
available so that I don't have to write one myself to add this
objectClass to OpenLDAP.
It's quite easy since you just have to take the declarations from
If not, is it possible to add these syntax checking routines in the
same way as one can extend the schema for object classes and attributes?
No, you can't simply add matching rules by configuration. You have
to implement them in C code.
(I know that I could probably cheat, turn schema checking off
No, you can't turn off schema checking anymore even though
OpenLDAP 2.3.x still accepts the configuration directive but
silently ignores it. 2.4.x does not accept this directive anymore.
Not to put too fine a point on it (I have no need for this schema
myself), but if I Google (just for the interest) on 'cpCps "object
class" schema' it comes up with (i.a.)
draft-ietf-pkix-ldap-pki-schema-00.txt, which would appear to be exactly
what you're looking for for building your "own" schema.
It's worth looking at this *expired* draft, especially section
"14. Outstanding Issues". I'm not sure whether it's a good idea to
rely on this expired draft.
If you want this I-D to make any progress it might be worth to
post a request on the ietf-pkix or ietf-ldapext mailing lists
since both authors and other skilled people are there. But don't
expect too much. This probably won't make any progress within the
time-frame of your project.