Re: [Acme] Want client-defined callback port

Richard Barnes <rlb@ipv.sx> Thu, 23 April 2015 14:18 UTC

Return-Path: <rlb@ipv.sx>
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 0B2001ACCE2 for <acme@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 23 Apr 2015 07:18:31 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.977
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.977 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] 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 eWWqaPpNDCwg for <acme@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 23 Apr 2015 07:18:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-lb0-f176.google.com (mail-lb0-f176.google.com [209.85.217.176]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 401371A899E for <acme@ietf.org>; Thu, 23 Apr 2015 07:16:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by lbcga7 with SMTP id ga7so14305173lbc.1 for <acme@ietf.org>; Thu, 23 Apr 2015 07:16:49 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=L2KHZLMJsVxDxg+8+lEXS5ZU9idXiDHKjVOZvrkfLmg=; b=ZlH7l+ZMLs8K42ke5hDs6j3v/ZoD0POM0sohD6bCLvvnvYXSC2PRfhuew98AHSRNlz g6nAvgjf/0irysYxctt6STd5RGzooL97DBSaNhwRa9HooNPApWjnboHGL2qXXjt3Cgs+ ALMZNCnHpPY0Z8bZ2+2Ma+e/j3dyhBjYyf9mO8KKGcsMLWSTdg5kW2jIr20+GoCDtaRN AhtXEieM7F3n37FGdf+xOwCJvNCKxmiTOK7VfVU6Jy+qpHlkkRqoEvVMceAGlNPP3NAX NB/l5S61RsYywm1GL0Ccudp/u4ZBkFBQgsZPZNOBwBit7ZQn4cRz5rU80L2GmuYPhoxp w+RA==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQn2VaDUI0UcKN0x433uXl1lRnRjlv7ma2UJHL/5Q8PAUJAPX1+o0o5Csf1z1VPTH+SaBPHh
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.152.203.162 with SMTP id kr2mr2677530lac.68.1429798609722; Thu, 23 Apr 2015 07:16:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.25.214.162 with HTTP; Thu, 23 Apr 2015 07:16:49 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAMm+Lwi97VeE7j72oCXTeqEJWSQ=RTM3VH6hZ_GapbtZ9bmfwQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <352DA5FE-AC6F-49A7-8F9F-70A74889204F@apple.com> <CAK3OfOjey4bk02qC_jj2c0AzZ54qnP=KAJnG=mXnO6A5gZ4m9g@mail.gmail.com> <CAL02cgQ94ijVrCM9SStcodRW+XSG2w5Zwu3+ny8HriDBnxjdtg@mail.gmail.com> <FF21526F-BA8D-4F54-AAE3-047632706668@apple.com> <CAL02cgSDk0TNYusEkXA3onmqF7=kaAWhHjpW8WjbiqxgQMdQwQ@mail.gmail.com> <555F6C74-2416-4893-BDEA-A3C2E55A6D57@apple.com> <16985cf1c8c444c48d328fa766ec5ff8@usma1ex-dag1mb2.msg.corp.akamai.com> <DE264105-7317-4343-BCEE-539A73D42544@apple.com> <CAL02cgTv5Zi4wP0gJPvcrty6N96pAaLRkCveyvMNfoyjQrrEyw@mail.gmail.com> <0609C348-A6D8-46D5-AF58-5BE69910D261@apple.com> <CAL02cgT_DPY-Bn9A=UtCx+g2FKHON-TXGCWfH-gL8rR4yEFHZg@mail.gmail.com> <CA+9kkMAqte7O0k0KVRLRaEOmJL-wK0ncoruv3yoqKBjZVnc99g@mail.gmail.com> <CABkgnnVP4as97fXe7XTFpC=rw6ETdXY5s=1cRj1Xan1sgDsx3A@mail.gmail.com> <CAMm+Lwg5GiknSceb1Ocs=VxA1cZpmcrmZbPeXpgfAHbOC3CUcw@mail.gmail.com> <CAL02cgReRXAu4QjvsDYYkJN-WKS2bZeWNtZK-AoVndTncMQvag@mail.gmail.com> <CAMm+Lwi97VeE7j72oCXTeqEJWSQ=RTM3VH6hZ_GapbtZ9bmfwQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2015 10:16:49 -0400
Message-ID: <CAL02cgTeztSb2B2pfweQfUL8Ty0XfiBLbtCLTrHwLNZ2LTQPVQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Richard Barnes <rlb@ipv.sx>
To: Phillip Hallam-Baker <phill@hallambaker.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a113463263bb8a0051464ee91
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/acme/7gS747KW3MqK8qub0zGf4WKL1SA>
Cc: Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com>, "Salz, Rich" <rsalz@akamai.com>, "acme@ietf.org" <acme@ietf.org>, Bruce Gaya <gaya@apple.com>, Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com>, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Acme] Want client-defined callback port
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: Thu, 23 Apr 2015 14:18:31 -0000

On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 9:37 AM, Phillip Hallam-Baker <phill@hallambaker.com
> wrote:

> On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 9:16 AM, Richard Barnes <rlb@ipv.sx>; wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 9:51 PM, Phillip Hallam-Baker
> > <phill@hallambaker.com>; wrote:
> >>
> >> I think this discussion is getting way too deep into the weeds of
> >> policy. That isn't a concern IETF has generally taken a definitive
> >> stand on. If it had there would not have been the need to set up
> >> CABForum outside IETF.
> >>
> >> As I see it the specification should allow:
> >>
> >> * A mechanism for the client to indicate the proof(s) of DNS control
> >> it can provide.
> >>
> >> * A mechanism for the service to indicate the proof(s) of DNS control
> >> it will accept.
> >
> >
> > I thought that's what this thread was about :)
>
> No, people were discussing the stuff that I said should be left to
> CABForum.
>
> An IETF working group is temporary. They are not meant to be permanent
> institutions.
>
> Why beat ourselves up here deciding an issue that we can't decide here?
>

We can design mechanisms here that we believe have a sufficient level of
security.  CABF and the individual CAs are free to opine on whether those
mechanisms are suitable for a given context.

In other words, it is my earnest hope that the validation methods listed in
Section 11.1.1 of the BRs [1] will not be designed by the CABF, but
selected from a list that IETF defines.  CABF is not an engineering
organization, after all.

--Richard

[1] https://cabforum.org/wp-content/uploads/BRv1.2.5.pdf