IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Acme] dns-01 challenge limitations

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Sun, 13 September 2020 20:36 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
X-Original-To: acme@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: acme@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D64603A0BFC for <acme@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 13 Sep 2020 13:36:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=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 sAr-3_-fFk-d for <acme@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 13 Sep 2020 13:36:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.19]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4BC193A0BA9 for <acme@ietf.org>; Sun, 13 Sep 2020 13:36:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0DB15389A5; Sun, 13 Sep 2020 16:15:27 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id 7QX53ZlmdZ0V; Sun, 13 Sep 2020 16:15:23 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.21]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 61DB5389A0; Sun, 13 Sep 2020 16:15:23 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 28CDC3F; Sun, 13 Sep 2020 16:36:37 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: Simon Ser <contact@emersion.fr>, "acme@ietf.org" <acme@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <2O1ZuxQsFg1YdMys-Xh-qbt9PWCaVqDo-UjYEbR6wn4Lpu5MvjHfFPo1jhwOnrTC5Y4K39CdfPRP1BKifxDOjMEu58qUQSe2Io68BkGt4mk=@emersion.fr>
References: <uu-OR5wP1b7svN1Rxems1U8_axHG7M8M9_kYqTBVyhQFxqrddppvhasyxKtLQ-4AZkrbBWhJ_9V-Xs8mQBK5E4smP4_1vANgZazIwicsbq0=@emersion.fr> <394568F0-00BD-4789-8CF4-C1A00A078B6E@felipegasper.com> <uTb0VcadGuNvEnDsg15ER29Kge26GImPfZ-JqS6iFkGXEn4DOFmq8V-hAb32lZNpv6r5rtfrZn6pihdDQkyts_I6BK4tni8CNMYC2RgSorU=@emersion.fr> <b506a8dd-fbf4-0c32-9ff5-30334436ee3a@amplitut.de> <2O1ZuxQsFg1YdMys-Xh-qbt9PWCaVqDo-UjYEbR6wn4Lpu5MvjHfFPo1jhwOnrTC5Y4K39CdfPRP1BKifxDOjMEu58qUQSe2Io68BkGt4mk=@emersion.fr>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6+git; nmh 1.7+dev; GNU Emacs 26.1
X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m<nPbLgmtKK-5dC@#:k
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg="pgp-sha512"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 2020 16:36:37 -0400
Message-ID: <19613.1600029397@localhost>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/acme/LrXZJiFNNqNROxkHNauqpbTGcso>
Subject: Re: [Acme] dns-01 challenge limitations
X-BeenThere: acme@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Sun, 13 Sep 2020 20:36:45 -0000

Simon Ser <contact@emersion.fr> wrote:
    >> For now, this is for many ACME clients a manual step. If you run your
    >> authoritative DNS service locally in your network, perhaps you could
    >> look into any options for automatically update the zone content.

    > I agree a standardized API for DNS operators would be nice, but it's a
    > pretty massive task. I don't see this happening anytime soon, no matter
    > how hard I try.

    > For this reason, I think a different approach would be desirable.

So, "DNS operators" are not the same thing as "DNS Registrars".
Many places do both, and many there is a generation of people who don't know
that they are different things.  Who think that the only way to manage zones
is through a web interface?
I think we have an education problem, not a standards problem.

DNS AXFR and IXFR has been around for a long long time.
RFC3007 is also widely implemented.
They are widely used by the majority of DNS operators, at very significant scale.

--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>   . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
           Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email