Re: [Acme] DNS challenge spec doesn't support CNAME model

Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com> Fri, 18 December 2015 16:49 UTC

Return-Path: <ted.ietf@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 F17DC1B370F for <acme@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 18 Dec 2015 08:49:51 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 4o1Tb3-pqNVW for <acme@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 18 Dec 2015 08:49:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-qg0-x235.google.com (mail-qg0-x235.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c04::235]) (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 457801B36FD for <acme@ietf.org>; Fri, 18 Dec 2015 08:49:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-qg0-x235.google.com with SMTP id k90so58086617qge.0 for <acme@ietf.org>; Fri, 18 Dec 2015 08:49:50 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=LwoVts/K62OzkfPywPMODtyCXDxPXhLlJxEE1itIa78=; b=wuqtoe7WCq0dGnegzAO4fm5WGWb605gWrUX5dlBxvn671xApLTe/pCn1PS9ZGedjr5 XnsX2MJjkbmIKENLpX0qSBvS93nzx0z6G+I5Rgcp8OSoURQ2yId098KuudL+qyQ+I1gZ AJ9yk4xJ9QMT4x+nJfyB1YQB3OtjEUsgh68q2iZ3bka4FEpfg5catfPuG2VlrI8yJF+1 EsbnoEKrBLFe6Ifikba/ogzSchgnJQPOZa56I0ftoHUHQN26fjBXumZ5lEwSn0XTvqYw 7Afm5vUgwagIYp4vBMMKEg05Tr7dahjcELJXZ5Yxop5CZseW8wr8ICRkJ8ZdEWMlMXLX w7TQ==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.140.250.70 with SMTP id v67mr6829655qhc.43.1450457389294; Fri, 18 Dec 2015 08:49:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.55.14.211 with HTTP; Fri, 18 Dec 2015 08:49:49 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <CANBOYLU9HgD+-Dz=LbKaEBNfnPJAF+e=SsLS8vDwOPf3jup8+Q@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CANBOYLWRn_k1LoMx3pgQx=0spM8VQMXen8DuOx44ksBtWjdHUA@mail.gmail.com> <20151217081948.153cafa35132a31a44794cb7@andrewayer.name> <CANBOYLU9HgD+-Dz=LbKaEBNfnPJAF+e=SsLS8vDwOPf3jup8+Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2015 08:49:49 -0800
Message-ID: <CA+9kkMCFh_NVH1wM06_8EsUwDHkK73dvbL5wo2dnYJLJ8SF-Og@mail.gmail.com>
From: Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com>
To: Eric Mill <eric@konklone.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a113a97e2736c8305272eedc9
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/acme/IchxS82_qa4wq2Qc7f3eJXr8uU0>
Cc: "acme@ietf.org" <acme@ietf.org>, Andrew Ayer <agwa@andrewayer.name>
Subject: Re: [Acme] DNS challenge spec doesn't support CNAME model
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: Fri, 18 Dec 2015 16:49:52 -0000

On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 2:40 PM, Eric Mill <eric@konklone.com> wrote:

>
> On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 11:19 AM, Andrew Ayer <agwa@andrewayer.name>
> wrote:
>
> Yes, but this forces users to do the work of adding a second CNAME that
> points to the third party service, and prevents the service from doing it
> themselves.
>
> The user base that would *benefit* from keeping the prefix consists of
> users who want to CNAME their domain to a service (instead of full DNS
> delegation) but who wish to obtain a cert themselves and then upload that
> certificate to the service they've CNAMEd their domain to. That user base
> sounds relatively small to me -- certainly smaller than the number of users
> who currently use (or would use) custom domain support on third party
> services.
>
> To me, it seems like we'll get more widespread use of ACME (and HTTPS
> adoption) by allowing large services to just "flip the switch" for
> everyone, rather than involving the user in this decision.
>
> So, I'm a wee bit concerned that taking the user out of the decision
entirely will leave us in a place where the user doesn't have an easy way
to withdraw approval for this.   If a user transitions from the user base
you are focused on to the one where they obtain the cert themselves, I'm
not sure how that works.

Put another way, I think we're tryin to make it easy for the user to get
what they want; we're not trying to set it up so that they're not involved
in deciding what they want.

Just my personal opinion,

Ted