IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Acme] SNI extension for tls-alpn-01 challenge in draft-ietf-acme-ip-05

"Salz, Rich" <rsalz@akamai.com> Tue, 23 April 2019 18:36 UTC

Return-Path: <rsalz@akamai.com>
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 77A2B12027C for <acme@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 23 Apr 2019 11:36:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.339
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.339 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, KHOP_DYNAMIC=1.363, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=akamai.com
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 8ii_PRjb2VE3 for <acme@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 23 Apr 2019 11:36:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx0b-00190b01.pphosted.com (mx0b-00190b01.pphosted.com [IPv6:2620:100:9005:57f::1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B782012012D for <acme@ietf.org>; Tue, 23 Apr 2019 11:36:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pps.filterd (m0050102.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by m0050102.ppops.net-00190b01. (8.16.0.27/8.16.0.27) with SMTP id x3NIWKVW024462; Tue, 23 Apr 2019 19:36:50 +0100
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=akamai.com; h=from : to : subject : date : message-id : references : in-reply-to : content-type : content-id : content-transfer-encoding : mime-version; s=jan2016.eng; bh=SKHSUxCXzmQmvqqqSKtcFswikxtKOMZMFjgVt4pDL4o=; b=Qmj1PktI83D6zMnIQ+aZZY+oXrbOMYhY3tplGw8hWZtNY3RFam4/reepmxm42K3iMRUQ JA28Qeg+G0Yo23FubdNcMoqOYWRCXNfxmwJ0uLGLW72Krubna32lH17ahcqLqO+0mdhu ZB39sUgNoJTkARgma8dqsR/UNoEi92c5AQvVfY6ysCbufe4gbAOzpu2ih2xSthFgEJmK 58n+slRZRC5CSUfz9p5M3CxJp0pOd4tSSwhXqDnFRXqEVUOGv86dIUDqoP3Hzz+ykrst dLIQUj0F4TadrS9fGINhDlgcB3YVDIiDPcMCtoZu866TL0uDL2UnOoxmHzbrx/EyN1Ux Cg==
Received: from prod-mail-ppoint1 (prod-mail-ppoint1.akamai.com [184.51.33.18] (may be forged)) by m0050102.ppops.net-00190b01. with ESMTP id 2s258n8kvd-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Tue, 23 Apr 2019 19:36:50 +0100
Received: from pps.filterd (prod-mail-ppoint1.akamai.com [127.0.0.1]) by prod-mail-ppoint1.akamai.com (8.16.0.27/8.16.0.27) with SMTP id x3NIW6dE012883; Tue, 23 Apr 2019 14:36:49 -0400
Received: from email.msg.corp.akamai.com ([172.27.27.21]) by prod-mail-ppoint1.akamai.com with ESMTP id 2ryxrvd02x-13 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Tue, 23 Apr 2019 14:36:48 -0400
Received: from USTX2EX-DAG1MB1.msg.corp.akamai.com (172.27.27.101) by ustx2ex-dag1mb2.msg.corp.akamai.com (172.27.27.102) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1473.3; Tue, 23 Apr 2019 13:35:54 -0500
Received: from USTX2EX-DAG1MB1.msg.corp.akamai.com ([172.27.6.131]) by ustx2ex-dag1mb1.msg.corp.akamai.com ([172.27.6.131]) with mapi id 15.00.1473.003; Tue, 23 Apr 2019 13:35:54 -0500
From: "Salz, Rich" <rsalz@akamai.com>
To: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>, Ryan Sleevi <ryan-ietf@sleevi.com>, "acme@ietf.org" <acme@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [Acme] SNI extension for tls-alpn-01 challenge in draft-ietf-acme-ip-05
Thread-Index: AQHU9L+epzmXNs4yDUG9lMQgYbElSKZAIJUAgAkveACAARtLgIAAA5SA//+/G4A=
Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2019 18:35:53 +0000
Message-ID: <19DF2A83-8009-41BE-8F71-7CBB883EB1B0@akamai.com>
References: <MN2PR18MB28457CCBEF6FFE2B70E286FCC3250@MN2PR18MB2845.namprd18.prod.outlook.com> <CAErg=HGYuRc+tOBwRedx5a9tnH9iVm3bfWYhfXeiHCgcvp8gMA@mail.gmail.com> <MN2PR18MB2845DBA634A0BC648222C627C3230@MN2PR18MB2845.namprd18.prod.outlook.com> <CAErg=HG=LgqDxZ8QxVSAq2K6MsKJX36o6O7v0ojS3rsgUXuHVw@mail.gmail.com> <24216.1556044089@dooku.sandelman.ca>
In-Reply-To: <24216.1556044089@dooku.sandelman.ca>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/10.18.0.190414
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [172.19.34.187]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-ID: <BA7685CCA8B2414CAC7D3C05F9296EFD@akamai.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:, , definitions=2019-04-23_06:, , signatures=0
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 suspectscore=0 malwarescore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 mlxscore=0 mlxlogscore=832 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1810050000 definitions=main-1904230129
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:, , definitions=2019-04-23_06:, , signatures=0
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 priorityscore=1501 malwarescore=0 suspectscore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 clxscore=1011 lowpriorityscore=0 mlxscore=0 impostorscore=0 mlxlogscore=837 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1810050000 definitions=main-1904230129
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/acme/O2JAJJ80KBM9p1qPN0tPs-KjIiI>
Subject: Re: [Acme] SNI extension for tls-alpn-01 challenge in draft-ietf-acme-ip-05
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: Tue, 23 Apr 2019 18:36:56 -0000

    Given that TLS would forbid SNI being present in that case, how would such a
    offboard TLS termination work?

Probably violating the RFC?  "We're not the protocol police"

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email