Add user defined identifying label to trusted-ca's
See original GitHub issueThe Hono tenant management API allows adding multiple trusted CAs which are then used as trust anchors to authenticate devices. When adding a trust anchor one has to provide some information (amongst others):
- subject-dn
- not-before
- not-after
A tenant can however have multiple trusted CAs with the same subject-dn and different expiration dates. Consider a tenant having the following CAs:
[
{
"subject-dn":"CN=Doors,O=ACME Inc.",
"not-before": "2018-01-01T00:00:00+01:00",
"not-after": "2021-01-01T00:00:00+01:00"
},
{
"subject-dn":"CN=Doors,O=ACME Inc.",
"not-before": "2021-01-01T00:00:00+01:00",
"not-after": "2025-01-01T00:00:00+01:00"
}
]
Now consider the scenario where these trusted CAs are listed in a UI.
As they both have the same subject-dn
it’s very difficult to distinguish them. They could be listed as:
- CN=Doors,O=ACME Inc. (Validity: “2018-01-01T00:00:00+01:00”-“2021-01-01T00:00:00+01:00”)
- CN=Doors,O=ACME Inc. (Validity: “2021-01-01T00:00:00+01:00”-“2025-01-01T00:00:00+01:00”)
This however is very hard to read.
A proposal therefore would be to introduce a tenant unique identifier for each certificate which the user can define herself. Then this identifier or label could be listed in the UI and all the details in a sub-view (e.g. when clicking on it):
- doors-cert-valid-until-2021
- doors-cert-valid-until-2025
When adding a trusted CA the user would then also add the (mandatory) additional text field which has to be unique to the other CAs of this tenant (proposal: cert-id
):
{
"cert-id": "doors-cert-valid-until-2025",
"subject-dn":"CN=Doors,O=ACME Inc.",
"not-before": "2021-01-01T00:00:00+01:00",
"not-after": "2025-01-01T00:00:00+01:00"
}
Issue Analytics
- State:
- Created 3 years ago
- Reactions:1
- Comments:6 (6 by maintainers)
Top GitHub Comments
This has been closed via PR #2470.
As we discussed, the addition of a new optional identifier doesn’t introduce any breaking change in the Device Management API. So it can be included in a minor release. But the device registry implementations, might need to have a strategy to generate these ids for the existing data.