Re: About CRL version

[Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@xxxxxxxxx>]

Hiya,

On 20/12/2023 14:46, Stephen Farrell wrote:
> Hiya,
>
> On 20/12/2023 07:35, 朱文杰 wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > After read RFC 5280, I have a question.
> >
> > For a CRL, if the version field is omitted, what is its default 
> > version? Is
> > it v1? 

Actually, sorry now I re-read the question, I probably
gave the wrong answer;-)

AFAIK, pretty much all CRLs used in the real world are
v2 and hence have the version field present. If the
version field is not present, then in theory that should
be a v1 CRL, but in practice it's likely whomever made
the CRL has a bug.

And in case I got it wrong again, I've cc'd the list for
the lamps WG this time:-)

Cheers,
S.

> v2 I think, based on the text from appendix A:
>
> "TBSCertList  ::=  SEQUENCE  {
>       version                 Version OPTIONAL,
>                                     -- if present, MUST be v2"
>
> Cheers,
> S.
>
> PS: the current best list for such questions is [1].
>
> [1] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spasm
>
> > I can't find any information about this in RFC 5280, also in RFC
> > 2459 and 3280?
> >
> > Please help me solve this confusion.
> >
> > Sincerely thanks.

Attachment: OpenPGP_0xE4D8E9F997A833DD.asc
Description: OpenPGP public key

Attachment: OpenPGP_signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature