Re: [Acme] Proposed ACME Charter Language

Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com> Mon, 20 April 2015 15:58 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 756351B2EB3 for <acme@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 20 Apr 2015 08:58:03 -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 uGSuNcEPcbhK for <acme@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 20 Apr 2015 08:58:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from odin.smetech.net (x-bolt-wan.smeinc.net [209.135.219.146]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 201B81B2EB9 for <acme@ietf.org>; Mon, 20 Apr 2015 08:58:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (unknown [209.135.209.5]) by odin.smetech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id DBAF49A4020; Mon, 20 Apr 2015 11:57:49 -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 kwjUqsJ0WaVp; Mon, 20 Apr 2015 11:57:28 -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 CE9A69A4019; Mon, 20 Apr 2015 11:57:28 -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: <55351EAB.1060905@cs.tcd.ie>
Date: Mon, 20 Apr 2015 11:57:17 -0400
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <E81896AA-245F-48B7-9B38-86AC30D2F82A@vigilsec.com>
References: <6A9C3116-8CC9-472C-8AA8-F555D060834C@vigilsec.com> <55351EAB.1060905@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/DeE8Hu6pTyXdmlT7aPvYr4QbNhE>
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 15:58:03 -0000

Stephen:

I did not see the ACME effort as trying to throw everything out.  Rather, throw out the parts that have been an impediment to the kind of automation proposed by ACME, but document the shortcoming.

Russ

On Apr 20, 2015, at 11:43 AM, Stephen Farrell wrote:

> 
> Hi Russ,
> 
> This bit puzzles me a lot, other bits puzzle me a little:-)
> 
> On 20/04/15 16:23, Russ Housley wrote:
>> The ACME WG will not duplicate work from previous IETF
>> certificate management efforts. 
> 
> If accepted, that would seem to me to nullify the entire
> effort. Can you explain why I'm reading it wrong?
> 
> ACME absolutely will duplicate work from previous IETF
> certificate management efforts that have failed to get
> traction over the last decade and a half. That is entirely
> fine IMO and needs no explicit justification whatsoever
> since we have 15 years of crystal clear non-use, outside
> of niche environments. (It is true that what is now
> considered a niche was not so considered back then.)
> 
> In fact I believe anyone who claims such duplication is a
> problem should be the one to provide evidence for that by
> documenting exactly why and at what scale.
> 
> It is just not credible for us to pretend that CMC, CMP,
> or EST are widely used for certificate management on the
> public Internet. If I'm wrong there I would really love
> to see the evidence but absent such, duplicating bits of
> functionality present in current RFCs that are not at all
> widely used is what is needed for this effort and needs
> to be encouraged.
> 
> I think we really ought bottom out on this aspect before
> chartering - it'd be dumb of us to charter an ACME WG that
> has to fight all the CRMF battles over again, or the ASN.1
> vs. whatever issues. So I hope lots of voices chime in
> and say what they think.
> 
> S.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Acme mailing list
> Acme@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/acme