Re: [Acme] Adoption of draft-sipos-acme-dtnnodeid

Russ Housley <> Thu, 13 August 2020 16:04 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7A8DA3A0E4A for <>; Thu, 13 Aug 2020 09:04:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.896
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.896 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id l6duYBxIl9Pb for <>; Thu, 13 Aug 2020 09:04:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id ED1643A0E23 for <>; Thu, 13 Aug 2020 09:04:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 88199300B87 for <>; Thu, 13 Aug 2020 12:04:46 -0400 (EDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10026) with ESMTP id H6im8SvLAK2q for <>; Thu, 13 Aug 2020 12:04:44 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from a860b60074bd.fios-router.home ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id A1F51300B50; Thu, 13 Aug 2020 12:04:44 -0400 (EDT)
From: Russ Housley <>
Message-Id: <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_C9A0D7D4-B3E5-4C96-BF7C-BA6D18101D47"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.15\))
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2020 12:04:45 -0400
In-Reply-To: <>
To: "Salz, Rich" <>
References: <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.15)
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Acme] Adoption of draft-sipos-acme-dtnnodeid
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Automated Certificate Management Environment <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2020 16:04:52 -0000

I read it and posted comments.  I think we should adopt the document as a starting point.


> On Aug 13, 2020, at 11:27 AM, Salz, Rich <> wrote:
> At IETF 108, we discussed <>  The minutes of that discussion are below (thanks again Yaron)
> Should we adopt this document?  At the meeting there was mild interest to do so.
> Please reply by end of next week.
> Brian Sipos on DTN (delay-tolerant networking) Draft
> Roman: are DTN nodes on the public Internet? Or closed network?
> Brian: no need for ACME if on a closed network. CA probably integrated in DTN.
> Sites have gateway nodes into the open Internet. Connecting to a public (not
> necessarily commercial) CA. Rick (DTN chair): are you offering to publish in
> ACME as an Experimental doc, or keep it within DTN? Brian: intend to keep in
> DTN. Use of URI validation is new to ACME. Rick: ACME is possibly a good way to
> resolve existing IESG discusses. Can take it off-line. Roman: would ACME
> servers have understanding of DTN identifiers? Brian: they would need to be DTN
> nodes. Just like the ACME server that implements the SMTP validation draft. Use
> case is inter-site DTN. Node is accepting bundles from other domains, lower
> trust exists. Yoav: ACME servers are CAs. They are reluctant to provide service
> to anything other than the normal web use case. Brian: no expectation of uptake
> in generic ACME servers. Rich: precedent for non-web use cases [missed
> specifics]. Rick: DTN is a small focused WG, not sure they have the bandwidth
> to take it on. Would be happy if ACME does. Brian: and this is so similar to
> SMTP. YN: hum? Roman: ask re: familiarity. YN: we know the answer. Hum: have
> you read it? pianissimo. YN: will not ask on adoption. Alexey: ask who is
> willing to review. Chat: Melinda, Russ, Rich, Alexey, Yoav. YN: let's read,
> then maybe have a call for adoption.