Re: [Acme] Considerations about ACME BoF

Yaron Sheffer <yaronf.ietf@gmail.com> Tue, 31 March 2015 03:36 UTC

Return-Path: <yaronf.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 A20331A8AC2 for <acme@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 30 Mar 2015 20:36:19 -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 EgCmTc1VlS2k for <acme@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 30 Mar 2015 20:36:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pa0-x230.google.com (mail-pa0-x230.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c03::230]) (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 2EE671A8ABF for <acme@ietf.org>; Mon, 30 Mar 2015 20:36:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by pactp5 with SMTP id tp5so6210092pac.1 for <acme@ietf.org>; Mon, 30 Mar 2015 20:36:17 -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=gb8GWzbbxnUO3XiycPm6LUhUaIc9Mua09/OEmFC2uYU=; b=O0LoayUvVh2qHinSXUA7qCS2+Yp497qk7mkNNYGaZ8cKmq//V0scYeKFqt4LnLy7YI st8PgEbCHoCPj/jhLUIqLYGi5FzV072i+QBNhtFep0PnYugBdQwufLsr7gIdEoSqhoX1 siyIglRU7SzrTScYtOM3U7DP6RPI36aE4kZ/dg7DMH83kVtPFSajwbuyKbEpMjAfgCbs ZFtj/oLW88RaIA9F5FTtL4R4RTgwPLKbBdnvwyF86Kv3ntPCosUskEddcu/qBfBnfC+R /Agz49I6NjGyuDY06nBGJkUVJ0+UXfcKsHe6cPakMscg6PKCcz9v74l0fzHknbEocXlV RkKg==
X-Received: by 10.68.212.227 with SMTP id nn3mr63113298pbc.59.1427772977903; Mon, 30 Mar 2015 20:36:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [172.19.245.4] (c-50-131-220-229.hsd1.ca.comcast.net. [50.131.220.229]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id e4sm12169588pdm.70.2015.03.30.20.36.16 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 30 Mar 2015 20:36:16 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <551A162F.9020105@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 30 Mar 2015 20:36:15 -0700
From: Yaron Sheffer <yaronf.ietf@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.5.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Scott Rea <Scott.Rea@DigiCert.com>, acme@ietf.org
References: <551569F6.8020507@openca.org> <55157164.80805@cs.tcd.ie> <5519A5B6.9010707@DigiCert.com>
In-Reply-To: <5519A5B6.9010707@DigiCert.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/acme/PA4aT3G0jBjY7vWDCZtT0v35Vz0>
Subject: Re: [Acme] Considerations about ACME BoF
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: Tue, 31 Mar 2015 03:36:19 -0000

>>> *Overstepping the Technical Boundaries.* As it was pointed out during
>>> the BoF, the proposed initiative does not address any technical issue,
>>> but, instead, is pushing a specific BUSINESS model. I found very
>>> inappropriate the examples of "I could not get my certificates in 45
>>> minutes.." as this is a NON argument.
>> With all due respect to Cullen, I agree:-) I think it's used as a
>> humorous anecdote basically and I've seen that done in quite a few
>> contexts in the IETF. But that one non-argument was raised is not
>> a procedural issue for me.
> I agree with Max that this should be a non-argument, and happy to hear
> that you agree Stephen
>>

For me ACME is purely about usability, so Cullen's anecdote is actually 
the only thing that matters. As a user, I want to be able to get a 
server certificate for a cloud server within seconds, and with no manual 
intervention. And if that breaks someone's business model, so be it.

And by the way, ACME with *email* certs could make S/MIME viable again, 
for those of us still using mail clients.

Thanks,
	Yaron