80 likes | 280 Views
Warranty Certificate Extension draft-ietf-pkix-warranty-extn-01. 55 th IETF Meeting November 2002. Purpose and use. Warranty certificate extension is non-critical Warranty extension explicitly offers immediate evidence of CA warranty, thereby
E N D
Warranty Certificate Extensiondraft-ietf-pkix-warranty-extn-01 55th IETF Meeting November 2002
Purpose and use • Warranty certificate extension is non-critical • Warranty extension explicitly offers immediate evidence of CA warranty, thereby • Enhances confidence to encourage use of certificates • Automates this aspect of risk management for RP • Provides information on the warranty provided: • Offers either: • Base warranty, or • Explicit statement that there is no warranty (NULL), • Optionally offers extended warranty
Format & Syntax • ASN.1 id-pe-warrantyData with OID • Choice: NULL or information on base warranty • Non-null warranty MUST include base warranty information • Non-null warranty may include extended warranty • Warranty period – before/after parameters • Warranty value – using ISO 4217 currency identifiers • amount / (10 ** amtExp10)
Warranty Type • Aggregated (0): claims are fulfilled until a ceiling value is reached; after that, no further claims are fulfilled. • Per-transaction (1): a ceiling value is imposed on each claim, but each transaction is considered independently.
Optional qualifiers • WarrantyData • Extended WarrantyInfo OPTIONAL: • Extended warranty information, with period, value and type • WarrantyData • tcURL TermsAndConditionsURL OPTIONAL • Terms and conditions pointer – to CP or specific T&C about warranty • The pointer is always a URL • URL MUST be a non-relative URL • MUST follow the URL syntax and encoding rules specified in RFC 1738
Benefits • Relying Party: • Evidence of a warranty will give the relying party confidence that compensation is possible • Risk may be reduced by the presence of a warranty extension with an explicit warranty stated • Risk may be reduced by the presence of a warranty extension with NULL • Supports automated risk decisions • Explicit warranty if harmed by incorrect certificate: • Specified maximum • Specified validity period • Subscriber: • Potential for greater acceptance of certificate • CA: • Potential to increase certificate acceptance in ecommerce-related applications
Issues • Should the extension be called a “disclaimer of liability” instead of a “warranty”, since the CA is providing warranty only up to a certain point, above which it does not offer a warranty – Is this a disclaimer of liability? (half-full vs. half-empty) • Should tcURL be mandatory? If absent in the extension, then this could imply trust in the CA: The RP trusts the CA - and then, may not need a warranty. If the RP does not trust the CA, then the RP needs to know the T&C - therefore tcURL must be present. OTOH if tcURL is optional, then trust in the extension itself is implied – This may be sufficient for the RP, or the RP may go to the T&C.
Path forward • Revise –01 and issue –02, addressing comments received • E.g., clarify text re warranty vs. liability • Issues arising to be resolved via pkix list