Re: [Acme] Proposed ACME Charter Language

[Stephen Farrell <[e-mail]>]

On 21/04/15 11:53, Russ Housley wrote:
> Hotspot 2.0 is behind a paywall:
> https://www.wi-fi.org/hotspot-20-release-2-technical-specification-package-v110

Bummer;-( Not sure if someone can summarise what EST is being used
for there. Could be that it overlaps more with homenet/anima than
with acme for example, not sure.

I also asked a question below though and am interested in your take
on that:

>> Anyway EST carries (a profile of) CMC messages [1] doesn't it? So
>> aren't we really asking about use of CMC-defined, ASN.1 encoded
>> payloads here after all?

Cheers,
S.

>  Russ
> 
> 
> On Apr 20, 2015, at 3:04 PM, Stephen Farrell wrote:
> 
>> 
>> Hiya,
>> 
>> On 20/04/15 17:40, Russ Housley wrote:
>>> 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.
>> 
>> (Do you have a ref for the hotspot spec? I don't know that one.)
>> 
>> Anyway EST carries (a profile of) CMC messages [1] doesn't it? So 
>> aren't we really asking about use of CMC-defined, ASN.1 encoded 
>> payloads here after all?
>> 
>> In case it helps, I think (open to correction of course) that
>> everyone would be fine with re-using and not duplicating PKCS#10,
>> at least for RSA, since that is what is well supported by well
>> deployed code. And that seems to be in the current ACME draft. [2]
>> So I think we're mostly talking about the bits and pieces of
>> CMC/CRMF that go beyond PKCS#10 - and it's those that are afaik
>> unused and where we oughtn't be fussed about duplicating (should
>> that be what the WG wants).
>> 
>> I do agree that we might want to think some more if there's
>> significant deployment of EST somewhere relevant, or if a good
>> argument that that's highly likely can be made.
>> 
>> I also agree that asking the question "why isn't EST good enough"
>> is totally valid, and that it'd be great if someone would summarise
>> the earlier thread on that. [3]
>> 
>> Cheers, S.
>> 
>> [1] https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7030#section-3 [2]
>> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-barnes-acme-01#section-4 [3]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/acme/current/msg00003.html
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> 
>>> Russ
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________ Acme mailing list
>>>  [e-mail] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/acme
>>> 
> 
>