IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Acme] SNI extension for tls-alpn-01 challenge in draft-ietf-acme-ip-05

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Wed, 24 April 2019 02:03 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr@sandelman.ca>
X-Original-To: acme@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: acme@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F24F412068B for <acme@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 23 Apr 2019 19:03:49 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 aGUY7ZMlsAXU for <acme@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 23 Apr 2019 19:03:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from relay.sandelman.ca (relay.cooperix.net [176.58.120.209]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0BB87120276 for <acme@ietf.org>; Tue, 23 Apr 2019 19:03:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dooku.sandelman.ca (ipv6.dooku.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:6::1]) by relay.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5BCC31F457; Wed, 24 Apr 2019 02:03:45 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by dooku.sandelman.ca (Postfix, from userid 179) id 12C2C3A6D; Tue, 23 Apr 2019 22:03:56 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: Ryan Sleevi <ryan-ietf@sleevi.com>
cc: "acme@ietf.org" <acme@ietf.org>
In-reply-to: <CAErg=HGzw2Z6w+os4AkZpoMdtc=EdoiRnkBomL-3x=e2sTpvuw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <MN2PR18MB28457CCBEF6FFE2B70E286FCC3250@MN2PR18MB2845.namprd18.prod.outlook.com> <CAErg=HGYuRc+tOBwRedx5a9tnH9iVm3bfWYhfXeiHCgcvp8gMA@mail.gmail.com> <MN2PR18MB2845DBA634A0BC648222C627C3230@MN2PR18MB2845.namprd18.prod.outlook.com> <CAErg=HG=LgqDxZ8QxVSAq2K6MsKJX36o6O7v0ojS3rsgUXuHVw@mail.gmail.com> <24216.1556044089@dooku.sandelman.ca> <CAErg=HH2NqHH-+AUAXvMWBrmhOPH=86twOkr=b=F0TduB45KSw@mail.gmail.com> <32047.1556051326@dooku.sandelman.ca> <CAErg=HHFtog0NY21BCVfQoZnWnmv9tzpmYp6Gw+gA=jdePRoEA@mail.gmail.com> <3267.1556053935@dooku.sandelman.ca> <CAErg=HGzw2Z6w+os4AkZpoMdtc=EdoiRnkBomL-3x=e2sTpvuw@mail.gmail.com>
Comments: In-reply-to Ryan Sleevi <ryan-ietf@sleevi.com> message dated "Tue, 23 Apr 2019 17:35:25 -0400."
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6; nmh 1.6; GNU Emacs 24.5.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg="pgp-sha256"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2019 22:03:56 -0400
Message-ID: <2166.1556071436@dooku.sandelman.ca>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/acme/7NmW8oZvI9SEpULCOciKWSkp3z4>
Subject: Re: [Acme] SNI extension for tls-alpn-01 challenge in draft-ietf-acme-ip-05
X-BeenThere: acme@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Wed, 24 Apr 2019 02:03:50 -0000

    mcr>     I ommited your great explanation of the situation.  *I* think that
    mcr> certificates bound to IP addresses are useful for things like server
    mcr> management systems (Dell DRACs, HP iLO, IBM RSA..).  As such, there are
    mcr> no cloud issues involved.

Ryan Sleevi <ryan-ietf@sleevi.com> wrote:
    > I’m a bit confused by understanding how this bit fits into the
    > discussion.

    > Is the concern that the draft-acme-ip would not work for these cases,
    > and/or that the choice and use of TLS-ALPN (or another identifier)
    > would preclude addressing these use cases?

I think your inclusion of TLS-ALPN (which would be new code, vs a few
extra scripts, I think) makes the solution more complex that it needs to be,
in order to address a use case which I've not been convinced is real.

    > It seems that the applicability of the protocol satisfies all of these
    > use cases, including internal CAs. Have I overlooked a concern with
    > respect to SNI and ALPN?

--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email