Re: [Acme] Proposed ACME Charter Language

Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com> Thu, 14 May 2015 21:07 UTC

Return-Path: <housley@vigilsec.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 61CF71A8A71 for <acme@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 14 May 2015 14:07:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -101.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 8S3Yhv99kVqp for <acme@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 14 May 2015 14:07:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from odin.smetech.net (x-bolt-wan.smeinc.net [209.135.219.146]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 40FD01A8AF3 for <acme@ietf.org>; Thu, 14 May 2015 14:07:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (unknown [209.135.209.5]) by odin.smetech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id D4F129A403B for <acme@ietf.org>; Thu, 14 May 2015 17:07:17 -0400 (EDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at smetech.net
Received: from odin.smetech.net ([209.135.209.4]) by localhost (ronin.smeinc.net [209.135.209.5]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id WgnW46vlfJ-K for <acme@ietf.org>; Thu, 14 May 2015 17:06:55 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from [192.168.2.100] (pool-96-255-145-93.washdc.fios.verizon.net [96.255.145.93]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by odin.smetech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0C65E9A4019 for <acme@ietf.org>; Thu, 14 May 2015 17:06:56 -0400 (EDT)
From: Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1085)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-424-211355601
Date: Thu, 14 May 2015 17:06:45 -0400
In-Reply-To: <CABtrr-X-i-8cAYLBUGcZLiOVrjOcr2z0FvNCKzp-ZCe9yVFTSg@mail.gmail.com>
To: IETF ACME <acme@ietf.org>
References: <CA+9kkMDB_sc6NLc4zqJAYZq6ELjHCd=6g_9CyH6zTH2cK+0apQ@mail.gmail.com> <36ae09b7c2bf4d60baca1e8d8ba9fd44@ustx2ex-dag1mb4.msg.corp.akamai.com> <20150514165733.GA1376@eff.org> <CABtrr-X-i-8cAYLBUGcZLiOVrjOcr2z0FvNCKzp-ZCe9yVFTSg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-Id: <A67FAEC1-578B-4511-A6AC-3C1660249C53@vigilsec.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1085)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/acme/QN7yF19OiQBdbu9VVUPPWULH3NI>
Subject: Re: [Acme] Proposed ACME Charter Language
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: Thu, 14 May 2015 21:07:30 -0000

Joe:

On Thu, May 14, 2015 at 2:16 PM, Joseph Lorenzo Hall <joe@cdt.org> wrote:
On Thu, May 14, 2015 at 12:57 PM, Peter Eckersley <pde@eff.org> wrote:
> On Wed, May 13, 2015 at 11:39:36PM +0000, Salz, Rich wrote:
>> > https://github.com/letsencrypt/acme-spec/issues
>>
>> I'd prefer if we just recorded issues there, but discussed them in the mailing list.
>
> Folks should also be aware that because letsencypt needs to move fast to
> get working and interoperable clients and servers for its launch,
> there's a fair chance that it will wind up with a deployed solution that
> diverges from the draft spec in various ways, and can't block on an IETF
> WG's deliberations.
>
> For that reason I think it's probably best if the WG and spec work
> doesn't start in earnest until after Let's Encrypt has launched (IIRC
> that was the consensus in Dallas, too).  And in the pre-launch period, a
> bug tracker is the most efficient and practical way for us to keep track
> of things that we absolutely need to fix/diverge from the draft spec on.

Heya, this reads as if the IETF WG work should block on the
letsencrypt launch and it seemed pretty clear in Dallas that while
letsencrypt is a motivating effort to spin up ACME that neither should
in the short-term be very eeply dependent on each other. (and this is
coming from someone who is very excited about both efforts)

Happy to be corrected if this was a misinterpretation or a mistake on my part.

That matches my understanding as well.

Russ