Re: Time to live
Stephen Farrell <[email protected]> Mon, 01 Jul 2002 16:25:40 +0100
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.sacred |
|---|---|
| Organization | Baltimore Technologies Ltd. |
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Al, I seem to also remember people wanting to be able to setup a system so that a particular credential might only be stored on a given client for a shortish period and the ttl setting indicates that. Two things to note about that are: - it'd mean ttl's in the minutes/hours range usually, rather than the months/years from your examples - its recognized that this is up to the client to enforce and can't be a MUST for interop Stephen. Al Arsenault wrote: > > The scenario for timing information (G11) is that credentials such as > private keys or trusted roots typically have validity periods, after which > they are no longer considered reliable. > > For example, if a credential is a trusted root, but that root will expire in > two years, you could indicate that, so that the user downloading the > credential stops relying on that trusted root at the appropriate time. > > Similarly, if the credential is a private key, and the certificate > associated with that private key expires in 90 days, the private key is no > longer useful after 90 days. This would be indicated in the "time to live" > structure. > > As far as the credential format being opaque to the protocol (requirement > F4), the reason for that is to drive a single framework to support any > credential format needed (e.g., PKCS12, PKCS15, PGP, ...). That is, we > didn't want to wind up with a protocol specific to PKCS 15, and then another > protocol specific for PGP, and then.. > > Al Arsenault > Chief Security Architect > Diversinet Corp. > e > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Preetam Ramakrishna" <[email protected]> > To: <[email protected]> > Sent: Monday, July 01, 2002 7:02 AM > Subject: Time to live > > > > > Hi, > > > > The requirements RFC mentions a general requirement ( G11 ) of > > time to live information associated with the downloaded credential by > > the Credential Server. > > The RFC also mentions that the credential format is opaque to the > > protocol. > > > > Are there any scenarios that necessitated this requirement. > > > > Thanks, > > Preetam.R -- ____________________________________________________________ Stephen Farrell Baltimore Technologies, tel: (direct line) +353 1 881 6716 39 Parkgate Street, fax: +353 1 881 7000 Dublin 8. mailto:[email protected] Ireland http://www.baltimore.com