On Sun, Jan 11, 2015 at 6:33 AM, Ian Goldberg iang@cs.uwaterloo.ca wrote:
On Sat, Jan 10, 2015 at 03:46:32PM -0500, Nick Mathewson wrote:
Circular revocation
My first attempt at writing a proposal here included a lengthy section about how to handle cases where certificate A revokes the key of certificate B, and certificate B revokes the key of certificate A.
Instead, I am inclined to say that this is a MUST NOT.
You still have to tell clients what to do if they see that situation.
A little while back, agl and I were discussing X.509 revocation, and we came to the tentative conclusion that by allowing for the recovation of certificates that revoke other certificates, and multiple signatures on certificates, determining whether a certificate was valid could actually be formally incomputable in general.
Hm. What do you think of Peter's idea for "newer revokes older" then?