Re: [Acme] Proposed ACME Charter Language

Anders Rundgren <anders.rundgren.net@gmail.com> Wed, 29 April 2015 12:11 UTC

Return-Path: <anders.rundgren.net@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 864551B2C59 for <acme@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 29 Apr 2015 05:11:13 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 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, 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 4MH8km7PtWff for <acme@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 29 Apr 2015 05:11:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wi0-x231.google.com (mail-wi0-x231.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c05::231]) (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 58FCA1A88D2 for <acme@ietf.org>; Wed, 29 Apr 2015 05:11:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by wief7 with SMTP id f7so38708216wie.0 for <acme@ietf.org>; Wed, 29 Apr 2015 05:11:10 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references :in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=t9kU9iYXzTaCTqYJTG+mw4N2AyrQj4I1KSvlZ9HKLkw=; b=STsw0jN7hp01BgvG9yS6x1zOInju8fFiZw7oJSNI5BieIZucekwzEovebgIEsOQpPc PUwa+u2vuUXL8H+IOrbqOtZ5eTX31CRico/Pt+FlTi0HQEeYyQnaRls3zP65CtpmRPCl HDrqLLToJYsq6IzygQHtp+kUx4MH1wskfGChBcEYGcWf6gKUjBMY8fGoYy8lz9Qq+Tup hEXoOAgF3IAsJ6gvTjE9imx1XXBWkOmHD3pIOOVb37WMF8q1V0SA9SvrnVnj82/TCQt7 9phLLtk6K27MgTn7jXGXS9lWsjPTgFNFWAZmh3H/w5vrswffhNp8oRh3PNwK7lOymKXz UsHA==
X-Received: by 10.181.13.170 with SMTP id ez10mr5230975wid.72.1430309470132; Wed, 29 Apr 2015 05:11:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.79] (4.197.130.77.rev.sfr.net. [77.130.197.4]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id it5sm20952607wid.3.2015.04.29.05.11.08 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 29 Apr 2015 05:11:09 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <5540CA56.7030108@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2015 14:11:02 +0200
From: Anders Rundgren <anders.rundgren.net@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; WOW64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "Songhaibin (A)" <haibin.song@huawei.com>, Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com>, IETF ACME <acme@ietf.org>
References: <6A9C3116-8CC9-472C-8AA8-F555D060834C@vigilsec.com> <55351EAB.1060905@cs.tcd.ie> <E81896AA-245F-48B7-9B38-86AC30D2F82A@vigilsec.com> <553523E4.2090808@cs.tcd.ie> <84718B26-1DA3-4D46-8B6F-B615806229D7@vigilsec.com> <CABcZeBOy2yBEMGMxcDy=E3fvc+OF1sZfvOV7twJHAvKqtrxtLg@mail.gmail.com> <28919F11-9336-41F6-9922-4E3E2DC4E935@gmail.com> <BD7B96B1-CD50-408F-AA06-49C20AB102A6@vigilsec.com> <E33E01DFD5BEA24B9F3F18671078951F65279C87@nkgeml501-mbs.china.huawei.com>
In-Reply-To: <E33E01DFD5BEA24B9F3F18671078951F65279C87@nkgeml501-mbs.china.huawei.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/acme/J31F-TQ1YZevxoT2rnejzdPvp-o>
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: Wed, 29 Apr 2015 12:11:13 -0000

On 2015-04-29 11:00, Songhaibin (A) wrote:
> And I think at the initial stage, the WG must consider the future
 > extensibility to accommodate other types of certificates (beyond
 > domain name certificates used by web servers). So discussion or
 > documentation about other use cases are also helpful at the initial stage.

I think that the difference between the web-server use-case and for example networked devices (M2M)
is that the latter probably will equipped with a built-in Attestation Key + Device Certificate
which affects both the format and process of requests.  But in this case we are probably rather
talking about client certificates.

Then you have client certificates for end-users with mobile computing devices.
That's my line of work and my scheme (FWIW) has few (if any) similarities with ACME.

So it would indeed be a very good idea listing use-cases that are in scope!

That was BTW the problem with PKIX' EST; it was never clear what it was intended for.

Anders

>
> Best Regards!
> -Haibin
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Acme [mailto:acme-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Russ Housley
>> Sent: Sunday, April 26, 2015 5:46 AM
>> To: IETF ACME
>> Subject: Re: [Acme] Proposed ACME Charter Language
>>
>> Here is the currrent language ...
>>
>> Russ
>>
>> = = = = = = = = = =
>>
>>
>> Automated Certificate Management Environment (ACME)
>>
>> Historically, issuance of certificates for Internet applications (e.g., web servers)
>> has involved many manual identity validation steps by the certification
>> authority (CA).  The ACME WG will specify conventions for automated X.509
>> certificate management, including validation of control over an identifier,
>> certificate issuance, certificate renewal, and certificate revocation.  The initial
>> focus of the ACME WG will be on domain name certificates (as used by web
>> servers), but other uses of certificates can be considered as work progresses.
>>
>> ACME certificate management must allow the CA to verify, in an automated
>> manner, that the party requesting a certificate has authority over the
>> requested identifiers, including the subject and subject alternative names.
>> The processing must also confirm that the requesting party has access to the
>> private key that corresponds to the public key that will appear in the certificate.
>> All of the processing must be done in a manner that is compatible with common
>> service deployment environments, such as hosting environments.
>>
>> ACME certificate management must, in an automated manner, allow a party
>> that has previously requested a certificate to subsequently request revocation
>> of that certificate.
>>
>> In order to facilitate deployment by CAs, the ACME protocol must be
>> compatible with common industry standards for the operation of a CA, for
>> example the CA/Browser Forum Baseline Requirements [0].
>>
>> The starting point for ACME WG discussions shall be draft-barnes-acme.
>>
>> [0] https://cabforum.org/wp-content/uploads/BRv1.2.3.pdf
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Acme mailing list
>> Acme@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/acme
>
> _______________________________________________
> Acme mailing list
> Acme@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/acme
>