Re: [Acme] Proposed ACME Charter Language

Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com> Mon, 20 April 2015 16:41 UTC

Return-Path: <housley@vigilsec.com>
X-Original-To: acme@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: acme@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4C34F1A8029 for <acme@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 20 Apr 2015 09:41:39 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -101.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id nQZk1QgFPmKR for <acme@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 20 Apr 2015 09:41:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from odin.smetech.net (x-bolt-wan.smeinc.net [209.135.219.146]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DA8011A7113 for <acme@ietf.org>; Mon, 20 Apr 2015 09:41:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (unknown [209.135.209.5]) by odin.smetech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8DBDD9A4016; Mon, 20 Apr 2015 12:41:27 -0400 (EDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at smetech.net
Received: from odin.smetech.net ([209.135.209.4]) by localhost (ronin.smeinc.net [209.135.209.5]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id QzWv26W0EH0T; Mon, 20 Apr 2015 12:41:06 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from [192.168.2.100] (pool-96-255-133-185.washdc.fios.verizon.net [96.255.133.185]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by odin.smetech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id B2E5B9A401A; Mon, 20 Apr 2015 12:41:06 -0400 (EDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1085)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
From: Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com>
In-Reply-To: <55352A7D.2080201@cs.tcd.ie>
Date: Mon, 20 Apr 2015 12:40:55 -0400
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <5F92A116-C190-44D7-BB06-C78156A18D15@vigilsec.com>
References: <6A9C3116-8CC9-472C-8AA8-F555D060834C@vigilsec.com> <55351EAB.1060905@cs.tcd.ie> <E81896AA-245F-48B7-9B38-86AC30D2F82A@vigilsec.com> <553523E4.2090808@cs.tcd.ie> <84718B26-1DA3-4D46-8B6F-B615806229D7@vigilsec.com> <55352A7D.2080201@cs.tcd.ie>
To: Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1085)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/acme/60BqGnOCn-ZTKJBmElFnwBNurOo>
Cc: IETF ACME <acme@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Acme] Proposed ACME Charter Language
X-BeenThere: acme@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Automated Certificate Management Environment <acme.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/acme>, <mailto:acme-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/acme/>
List-Post: <mailto:acme@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:acme-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/acme>, <mailto:acme-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 20 Apr 2015 16:41:39 -0000

Stephen:

>> I'm willing to assume that an
>> attempt to replace things that people are using will meet with
>> vigorous discussion.
> 
> Right. People are using CMC, but not afaik when dealing with any
> public CAs for getting certificates for public Internet services.
> I think CMP has some similar but much smaller set of real uses. (*)
> And I'm not sure if EST has gotten traction. SCEP has uses but
> that's another kettle of cans of worms and fish;-)
> 
> I think it would be better to have the vigorous discussion about
> CMC vs.ACME-JSON-etc (if that's the one we need to have) before
> we form the WG. But is that in fact the meat of your concern here?
> If so, then I assume you'd be arguing for use of CMC/CRMF PDUs
> in ACME messages. If not, I'm not back to being puzzled. Can you
> clarify?

I was not concerned about CMC, CMP, or SCEP.  My concern is around EST.  The Hotspot spec points to it, and we should see if others are using it.

Russ