Re: [Acme] ACME wildcards vs. subdomain authorizations (was RE: Call for adoption draft-frield-acme-subdomains)

[Daniel McCarney <[e-mail]>]

>
>  I thought that was the reason why ACME limits wildcard authz to DNS.


I don't think RFC 8555 imposes any restrictions on what challenge types can
be used for wildcard identifiers. Limiting wildcard DNS identifiers to the
DNS-01 challenge is a policy decision by Let's Encrypt.

On Mon, Jan 20, 2020 at 7:32 AM Felipe Gasper <[e-mail]>
wrote:

> Will this document eventually also describe subdomain authz via the
> standard ACME workflow?
>
> Examples:
>
> 1) Client wants a certificate for example.com & www.example.com. Ideally,
> if the client authzs example.com, then authz for www.example.com
> shouldn’t be necessary.
>
> 2) Now client also wants a separate certificate for sub.example.com and
> www.sub.example.com. Since example.com was already authorized, this
> certificate order should not require any additional authz.
>
> It seems like the above workflow should “just work”, but since it’s
> closely related to what your document describes I wonder if there’s benefit
> to mentioning it?
>
> Also, the linked document states:
>
>    The call flow illustrates the DNS-based proof of ownership mechanism,
>    but the subdomain workflow is equally valid for HTTP based proof of
>    ownership.
>
> Can’t I have HTTP access to a base domain’s website without having access
> to a subdomain’s, though? I thought that was the reason why ACME limits
> wildcard authz to DNS.
>
>
> cheers,
> -Felipe Gasper
>
>
> > On Jan 20, 2020, at 6:48 AM, Owen Friel (ofriel) <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
> >
> > FYI, https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-friel-acme-subdomains-01
> documents the proposed new authorization object field "basedomain"
> >
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Acme <[e-mail]> On Behalf Of Owen Friel (ofriel)
> >> Sent: 06 December 2019 15:41
> >> To: Salz, Rich <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
> >> Subject: [Acme] ACME wildcards vs. subdomain authorizations (was RE:
> Call for
> >> adoption draft-frield-acme-subdomains)
> >>
> >> Any comments on this email on how to explicitly distinguish between
> wildcard
> >> and subdomain authorizations, which hopefully addresses ekr's mic
> comments.
> >>
> >>
> >>> -----Original Message-----
> >>> From: Acme <[e-mail]> On Behalf Of Owen Friel (ofriel)
> >>> Sent: 26 November 2019 22:51
> >>> To: Salz, Rich <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
> >>> Subject: Re: [Acme] Call for adoption draft-frield-acme-subdomains
> >>>
> >>> DNS wildcards are mentioned in 3 sections in RFC8555 (in addition to
> >>> the IANA Considerations section):
> >>>
> >>> 1. https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8555#section-7.1.3 Order Objects:
> >>>
> >>>   Any identifier of type "dns" in a newOrder request MAY have a
> >>>   wildcard domain name as its value.  A wildcard domain name consists
> >>>   of a single asterisk character followed by a single full stop
> >>>   character ("*.") followed by a domain name as defined for use in the
> >>>   Subject Alternate Name Extension by [RFC5280].  An authorization
> >>>   returned by the server for a wildcard domain name identifier MUST NOT
> >>>   include the asterisk and full stop ("*.") prefix in the authorization
> >>>   identifier value.  The returned authorization MUST include the
> >>>   optional "wildcard" field, with a value of true.
> >>>
> >>> 2. https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8555#section-7.1.4 Authorization
> Objects:
> >>>
> >>>   If an
> >>>   authorization object conveys authorization for the base domain of a
> >>>   newOrder DNS identifier containing a wildcard domain name, then the
> >>>   optional authorizations "wildcard" field MUST be present with a value
> >>>   of true.
> >>>
> >>> 3. https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8555#section-7.4.1 Pre-authorization
> >>>
> >>>   Note that because the identifier in a pre-authorization request is
> >>>   the exact identifier to be included in the authorization object, pre-
> >>>   authorization cannot be used to authorize issuance of certificates
> >>>   containing wildcard domain names.
> >>>
> >>> For the subdomains use case, it looks as if it makes sense to define a
> >>> "parentdomain" boolean flag (or "basedomainname" or similar) to be
> >>> included in the authorization object for a domain that authorizes
> >>> subdomain certs. The relevant CAB guidelines are quoted in
> >>> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-friel-
> >>> acme-subdomains-00#appendix-A.
> >>>
> >>> The authorization object would then explicitly indicate that this is a
> >>> base domain authorization and thus subdomain certs may be issued off
> >>> this. This is conceptually similar to the current "wildcard" flag
> >>> which indicates that a wildcard cert may be issued off the identifier
> >>> in the object, and would definitively differentiate wildcard vs. base
> >>> domain vs. explicit domain authorizations.
> >>>
> >>> Item #3 from section 7.4.1 Pre-authorization is already called out as
> >>> a substantive change from RFC8555: i.e. the identifier in the
> >>> authorization object may be different from the identifier in the
> newAuthz
> >> object.
> >>>
> >>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>> From: Acme <[e-mail]> On Behalf Of Salz, Rich
> >>>> Sent: 26 November 2019 21:53
> >>>> To: [e-mail]
> >>>> Subject: Re: [Acme] Call for adoption draft-frield-acme-subdomains
> >>>>
> >>>> WRONG.  My mistake.
> >>>>
> >>>> Please discuss this, especially the subdomains/wildcard issues.
> >>>> This is *NOT* a call for adoption.  We will take this up in
> Vancouver, IETF
> >> 107.
> >>>>
> >>>> From: Rich Salz <mailto:[e-mail]>
> >>>> Date: Tuesday, November 26, 2019 at 4:51 PM
> >>>> To: "mailto:[e-mail]" <mailto:[e-mail]>
> >>>> Subject: [Acme] Call for adoption draft-frield-acme-subdomains
> >>>>
> >>>> This email starts a ten-day call for adoption. There was consensus
> >>>> in the room at IETF 106 to adopt this as a working group document.
> >>>> If you disagree with that, or have any other strong feelings, please
> >>>> post to the list before the end of next week.
> >>>> Also discussed was the need for some additional clarity around
> >>>> subdomains and the existing wildcard challenges.
> >>>>
> >>>> Thank you.
> >>>>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> Acme mailing list
> >>> [e-mail]
> >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/acme
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Acme mailing list
> >> [e-mail]
> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/acme
> > _______________________________________________
> > Acme mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/acme
>
> _______________________________________________
> Acme mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/acme
>