Tony Earnshaw wrote:
Patrick Patterson skrev, on 25-02-2008 21:25:
I am working on a PKI project, and would like to be able to use OpenLDAP, however, the certificate policy that we have to conform to mandates that CA entries be a member of pkiCA and cpCps auxiliary object classes. Now, the pkiCA requirement is easy, as it looks like OpenLDAP supports that just fine, however, I'm wondering if cpCPS is able to be supported.
I guess my question is twofold:
Have the syntax checking routines mandated for the cpCps object class
Strictly speaking an object class doesn't have any matching rules assigned to it. You're probably talking about the related attribute types and their matching rules.
(I presume out of ITU-T X.509 chapter 11) been implemented in OpenLDAP,
Matching rule 'objectIdentifierFirstComponentMatch' for attribute type 'certificatePolicy' seems to be implemented in OpenLDAP 2.4.x. Not sure about 2.3.x, check the subschema yourself.
and if so, does anyone happen to have a schema file available so that I don't have to write one myself to add this objectClass to OpenLDAP.
It's quite easy since you just have to take the declarations from http://tools.ietf.org/draft/draft-ietf-pkix-ldap-pki-schema/draft-ietf-pkix-...
If not, is it possible to add these syntax checking routines in the same way as one can extend the schema for object classes and attributes?
No, you can't simply add matching rules by configuration. You have to implement them in C code.
(I know that I could probably cheat, turn schema checking off
No, you can't turn off schema checking anymore even though OpenLDAP 2.3.x still accepts the configuration directive but silently ignores it. 2.4.x does not accept this directive anymore.
Not to put too fine a point on it (I have no need for this schema myself), but if I Google (just for the interest) on 'cpCps "object class" schema' it comes up with (i.a.) draft-ietf-pkix-ldap-pki-schema-00.txt, which would appear to be exactly what you're looking for for building your "own" schema.
It's worth looking at this *expired* draft, especially section "14. Outstanding Issues". I'm not sure whether it's a good idea to rely on this expired draft.
If you want this I-D to make any progress it might be worth to post a request on the ietf-pkix or ietf-ldapext mailing lists since both authors and other skilled people are there. But don't expect too much. This probably won't make any progress within the time-frame of your project.
Ciao, Michael.