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

Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com> Mon, 27 July 2015 21:00 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 DAAE61B33D6 for <acme@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 27 Jul 2015 14:00:12 -0700 (PDT)
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 zioIJGFjpOyq for <acme@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 27 Jul 2015 14:00:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wi0-x235.google.com (mail-wi0-x235.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c05::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 9F9F21B2AB8 for <acme@ietf.org>; Mon, 27 Jul 2015 14:00:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by wibxm9 with SMTP id xm9so133714087wib.1 for <acme@ietf.org>; Mon, 27 Jul 2015 14:00:09 -0700 (PDT)
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=UbwQHtV889Op4tk+50T37nC6IjTkp69YV6M1v5lTksc=; b=kIFwp8RMLvZTuR2FrhNJTgTmdVM0SaOKLBTSx2xOwlKlOuITHQRkmYn69GR/uW0ieu 71S27W+WLtkEcysHtkMpY+nKluxhTobR8huGBczFHCQZdRlOGYxFvREqiyS5XjgPLitI RqKGhszaIjwQxU4RBG06lKk/IISWBE/3Y9BC1o6kbTEldSiYRCm69I+IalPeMtFfOmkL xTgAOfbiH1yG3qbp9T7MDx4tXy6t44Y70Z0wgG5nSE9jtt/nnssGQGSPeDDsmqX7JR5T 7Li+VN5Wz6CY1stUZCq+g+KJsEqhRDbDF8mvauWizTmKhA3K5YqUejYFsRIMNZcen/Sn 92+g==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.194.108.232 with SMTP id hn8mr34141069wjb.154.1438030809431; Mon, 27 Jul 2015 14:00:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.194.17.68 with HTTP; Mon, 27 Jul 2015 14:00:09 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <cdd7588d86884d81a68e104823b65dcc@ustx2ex-dag1mb2.msg.corp.akamai.com>
References: <cdd7588d86884d81a68e104823b65dcc@ustx2ex-dag1mb2.msg.corp.akamai.com>
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2015 14:00:09 -0700
Message-ID: <CA+9kkMDxAE+SAFkQdu09nbq8LBREXxFc_HNpcjCHppkOYTE35w@mail.gmail.com>
From: Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com>
To: "Salz, Rich" <rsalz@akamai.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7bf198a0928477051be1a3ef
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/acme/JwP86QCnPkLbmNozLWx_uAtqisY>
Cc: "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 21:00:13 -0000

Hi Rich,

On Mon, Jul 27, 2015 at 1:06 PM, Salz, Rich <rsalz@akamai.com>; wrote:

>  Suppose we add a new challenge “offline/xxxx” where /xxxx is an IANA
> registry (first-come first-served).
>

​I don't think I understand the IANA registry bit here.  Is the idea that
FooCA registers something like FooCA-send-us-this-by-registered-mail, and
when the challenge is received by a client it looks at the IANA registry
for something it can parse into human interaction?  How is that better than
a single "offline" challenge where the URL to check for the steps is in the
response?

The ACME client then stops doing online protocol, communicates with its
> human who does the appropriate credential validation with the CA.
> Ultimately (hours, days, weeks, months later), the protocol continues and
> the “offline” challenge gets its response which is a base64 string.
>
>
>

​This seems fairly low on the priority list, honestly, but if we are going
to do it, I think we need to have some thought to what happens at some of
the larger time scales.  If months pass, the contact information may go
stale, to take a simple example.

 For the current CA’s, what manual process could not be served by this type
> of challenge?
>
>
>

​Do CA's asked for one type (e.g. EV) ever offer a lower type (like DV)?
That seems like a valid business response, but very hard to fit into an
automated protocol flow.

regards,

Ted



>                  /r$
>
>
>
> --
>
> Senior Architect, Akamai Technologies
>
> IM: richsalz@jabber.at Twitter: RichSalz
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Acme mailing list
> Acme@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/acme
>
>