Re: [Acme] Supporting off-line (manual) validation

Phillip Hallam-Baker <phill@hallambaker.com> Mon, 27 July 2015 23:51 UTC

Return-Path: <hallam@gmail.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 A0DE81A0162 for <acme@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 27 Jul 2015 16:51:15 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.277
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.277 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=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 W69Qx79tN6B8 for <acme@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 27 Jul 2015 16:51:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-la0-x236.google.com (mail-la0-x236.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c03::236]) (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 8BD781A03A1 for <acme@ietf.org>; Mon, 27 Jul 2015 16:51:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by lagw2 with SMTP id w2so58547882lag.3 for <acme@ietf.org>; Mon, 27 Jul 2015 16:51:11 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject :from:to:cc:content-type; bh=6P19vTnroeGTnCOxZaZvJ4iOtUILHl57XV9LbW0ikIA=; b=NjVVjj3kyM0KgCp0csiy5vqGiHdOyPiZKcYNaMBqYvk773BMeWHlw5tdvloduEwAFr ePbagoxsWVZZYl5fah6SiwKhYEmLnWrRnlM1QaCElQvWPd/WC62ZA2erqtJ7cS772aOy Ko5nK0ZW1R3KKtRaW/YXbiALXbQBp1MVkzXP7bnLzrA42yaVCLDUAg32mMHUj2G0lVcm 1/ahUwBNg17jlmg06dSGF+vss0gtc15tHh5o4cWPSRDr0WlQ2NySabBTd47WBEAQ57xw vedJeXSnPh92921MZ+osPjoSp+YuAZWnXiyW/UHkTMNwGMsWsd3MHkjEYGp0XM14ZAKe AxCw==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.112.123.179 with SMTP id mb19mr30198194lbb.55.1438041071892; Mon, 27 Jul 2015 16:51:11 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: hallam@gmail.com
Received: by 10.112.203.163 with HTTP; Mon, 27 Jul 2015 16:51:11 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <671fb43b59c44e9b848926189912da01@ustx2ex-dag1mb2.msg.corp.akamai.com>
References: <cdd7588d86884d81a68e104823b65dcc@ustx2ex-dag1mb2.msg.corp.akamai.com> <CA+9kkMDxAE+SAFkQdu09nbq8LBREXxFc_HNpcjCHppkOYTE35w@mail.gmail.com> <af096a1746d24694a5503b82deb27d74@ustx2ex-dag1mb2.msg.corp.akamai.com> <CAL02cgSGJYws4SEkP7VJ+eOskPBKFKJ1w=_GQ7WLB-MC6=NKiw@mail.gmail.com> <671fb43b59c44e9b848926189912da01@ustx2ex-dag1mb2.msg.corp.akamai.com>
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2015 19:51:11 -0400
X-Google-Sender-Auth: BL6tJtOmSQ5nGUCUOS1l7tswBHE
Message-ID: <CAMm+LwjANR0UgPcHCXGOxEoa8CeVZM2iUWsEEbKboYouJ9Sb3A@mail.gmail.com>
From: Phillip Hallam-Baker <phill@hallambaker.com>
To: "Salz, Rich" <rsalz@akamai.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7bfd047643415c051be40796
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/acme/9Z08ea9aEtTrJWJ67wrV2cVadXE>
Cc: Richard Barnes <rlb@ipv.sx>, Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com>, "acme@ietf.org" <acme@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Acme] Supporting off-line (manual) validation
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: <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: Mon, 27 Jul 2015 23:51:15 -0000

As a general rule, any protocol that contains a component that may be
subject to variation in the field needs an IANA registry. Since we are
going to have multiple automatic validation processes we will be required
to have a registry even if there is only one entry at first.

For the offline part, I don't think that the border between automatic and
offline is quite as clear as some folk seem to think. Some validation
mechanisms are intrinsically offline we have a proposal for a completely
automatic one but virtually all the processes in use today are a mix of the
two.

Even EV issue can be automated if you have an already validate credential
and a DV issue can return 'pending' for a host of reasons. And even if you
are doing EV you have to pass domain validation as well.

So I don't think this is a taxonomy thing. It is a 'label the process so
the automatic bits can be identified' thing and a 'this may not work
automatically' thing. So no to offline/xxxx but yes to a registry of
validation schemes.