Re: id-kp-OCSPSigning extended key usage

Hi,


On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 2:46 AM, Winter Mute <[email protected]> wrote:

> Hello,
> The RFC <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6960#section-4.2.2.2> states that:
>
>> OCSP signing delegation SHALL be designated by the inclusion of
>> id-kp-OCSPSigning in an extended key usage certificate extension
>> included in the OCSP response signer's certificate.
>
> The use of "SHALL" rather than "MUST" indicates that this recommendation
> can be ignored.
>

SHALL is equivalent to MUST, see RFC2119:
 .... MUST This word, or the terms "REQUIRED" or "SHALL"...
I think you're thinking of SHOULD.

Cheers,
Mischa

How does openssl handle OCSP responses signed by certificates that do not
> have id-kp-OCSPSigning in the extended key usage certificate extension
> when the responses are not signed by the issuing CA directly?
> What informs this decision/policy?
> Are there any security implications in including or excluding OCSP-sign in
> the extended key usage extension?
>
> --
> openssl-dev mailing list
> To unsubscribe: https://mta.openssl.org/mailman/listinfo/openssl-dev
>
>

-- 
openssl-dev mailing list
To unsubscribe: https://mta.openssl.org/mailman/listinfo/openssl-dev