Re: [Acme] DNS-ACCOUNT-01 Updates

[Amir Omidi <[e-mail]>]

After some deliberation on this, I think we're erring on the side of
DNS-ACCOUNT-01 rather than DNS-02. Speaking to a few people privately,
there is a concern that DNS-02 implies a deprecation of DNS-01 which is not
the intention of this draft. This unintentional implication may be
detrimental to the adoption of ACME.

We're also planning on renaming the draft to
draft-ietf-acme-dns-account-challenge to reduce the confusion with the two
number suffixes.

On Mon, May 22, 2023 at 7:33 AM Deb Cooley <[e-mail]> wrote:

> What is confusing is having a numerical value as part of the draft title.
> Currently:  draft-ietf-acme-dns-account-01-01 which is only going to be
> worse as the draft moves through version numbers.  My suggestion would be
> to name it without the use of a numerical value.  This gets rid of both
> problems.  The only question is what to actually call it.
>
> Deb Cooley (no hats)
> [e-mail]
>
>
>
> On Fri, May 19, 2023 at 8:38 AM Sean Dilda <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>> I don't spend a lot of time on the Let's Encrypt forums, but I do
>> maintain an internal ACME server and work with the IT staff that manage
>> certs/acme client installs.   Most of my users are only vaguely aware that
>> their ACME client creates an account as part of the process.  Given that, I
>> suspect they would find the name 'DNS-ACCOUNT-01' confusing as it wouldn't
>> be clear to them which account is being referred to.  They would likely
>> assume it would be the account on their DNS provider.    I think 'DNS-02'
>> as a newer version of the DNS challenge type would be less confusing.
>> ------------------------------
>> *From:* Acme <[e-mail]> on behalf of Amir Omidi <aaomidi=
>> [e-mail]>
>> *Sent:* Thursday, May 18, 2023 5:03 PM
>> *To:* Seo Suchan <[e-mail]>
>> *Cc:* [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
>> *Subject:* Re: [Acme] DNS-ACCOUNT-01 Updates
>>
>> I think what decision happens here will probably end up setting the
>> precedent on either these digits are "version numbers" of the "base
>> challenge types" (Not sure what to call them), and they act as a
>> replacement of them. Or that they are another flavor of the
>> technologies/protocols used in those challenges. I do not have strong
>> opinions here either way.
>>
>> Another factor to consider is how would support/Q&A forums feel about the
>> name choice of DNS-ACCOUNT-01 vs DNS-02. For example, if there is anyone
>> here who's keeping an eye on the Let's Encrypt's community forum do you
>> think DNS-02 would make things easier or harder for users adopting ACME
>> based certificate issuance and the folks helping them out? If harder, do
>> you think DNS-ACCOUNT-01 would be a better option here?
>>
>> On Sat, May 13, 2023 at 5:24 AM Seo Suchan <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>
>> I kinda think TLS-SNI-02 was made as version 2 of TLS-SNI-01, but it
>> doesn't matter as they are no longer a thing
>> 2023-05-13 오전 3:43에 Q Misell 이(가) 쓴 글:
>>
>>
>> I'm also in favour of calling it DNS-02. I highly doubt there will be
>> many (if any) versions of challenges beyond version 1. It makes more sense
>> to me to read DNS-02 and DNS challenge type 2, not a upgraded edition of
>> version 1.
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> Any statements contained in this email are personal to the author and are
>> not necessarily the statements of the company unless specifically stated.
>> AS207960 Cyfyngedig, having a registered office at 13 Pen-y-lan Terrace,
>> Caerdydd, Cymru, CF23 9EU, trading as Glauca Digital, is a company
>> registered in Wales under № 12417574
>> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/12417574__;!!OToaGQ!r1rAJU8Y16wsZhu9vZIYkTsR0gQG3x5k5iniyAWsEcG3EL1ott1SAH_t6KkJBohTGUxArlzOHToU5usEHb4eLMzA2bpN$>.
>> ICO register №: ZA782876
>> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://ico.org.uk/ESDWebPages/Entry/ZA782876__;!!OToaGQ!r1rAJU8Y16wsZhu9vZIYkTsR0gQG3x5k5iniyAWsEcG3EL1ott1SAH_t6KkJBohTGUxArlzOHToU5usEHb4eLKSmK3R2$>.
>> UK VAT №: GB378323867. EU VAT №: EU372013983. Turkish VAT №: 0861333524.
>> South Korean VAT №: 522-80-03080. Glauca Digital and the Glauca logo are
>> registered trademarks in the UK, under № UK00003718474 and № UK00003718468,
>> respectively.
>>
>>
>> On Fri, 12 May 2023 at 17:58, Aaron Gable <aaron=
>> [e-mail]> wrote:
>>
>> For what it's worth, I'm in favor of calling it DNS-02. Despite your
>> totally correct descriptions of the disadvantages of this new method, I
>> *do* still view it as a generally-improved version of DNS-01. It's
>> obviously backwards-incompatible, hence the new major version number, but
>> it is generally an improvement that creates more flexibility for clients at
>> little cost. I also find the name "DNS-ACCOUNT-01" to be slightly
>> unfortunate, as no "dns accounts" are involved -- it makes sense once you
>> understand the method, but the name gives little to no hint to how the
>> method works on its own.
>>
>> Aaron
>>
>> On Thu, May 11, 2023 at 4:52 PM Antonios Chariton <[e-mail]>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Hello everyone,
>>
>> I’m sending this e-mail to the list to update you all on DNS-ACCOUNT-01
>> and the news we have since the presentation in IETF 116.
>>
>> You can all help by reviewing the text[0], these updates, and sharing
>> your opinion in this thread here!
>>
>> The CA/B Forum 2023-05-04 meeting discussed DNS-ACCOUNT-01 and three
>> things came out of it, as it is evident in the minutes[1]:
>>
>> 1) This method is compatible with the CA/B Forum Baseline Requirements
>> that are binding for all WebPKI CAs, specifically section 3.2.2.4.7 for
>> agreed-upon change to a DNS record. This means that CAs can start using
>> this standard immediately, and there are no other dependencies. The design
>> seemed to be good in its current version. Obviously, quick changes to their
>> CP/CPS may be required, but this is not blocking and unilateral.
>>
>> 2) There is a documented need for various usecases where this challenge
>> would help, from several stakeholders, and evidence that it could be
>> beneficial to the ecosystem and its development. It allows ACME to be used
>> in even more situations where more traditional and non-automatable methods
>> had to be relied upon.
>>
>> 3) There was a suggestion to rename this challenge to DNS-02. This is
>> something that we had rejected back when we created this challenge, however
>> it has been suggested several times, so we are happy to reconsider this. It
>> may be the right choice.
>>
>> There’s no published precedence of what -02 means right now, so it’s
>> unclear whether it is a second option, or a next generation / improved
>> challenge. We never planned to replace DNS-01 with our challenge, we always
>> intended to add more options, and cover more use cases. Here are some
>> technical “disadvantages” of this work vs DNS-01:
>>
>> 1) ACME Clients need to calculate the correct label. Although we provide
>> the algorithm, a bash script, and test vectors, anecdotal data from ISRG
>> suggest that some clients still mess things up (implementing RFC 8555), so
>> this is another value where this may happen. An easy solution here would be
>> to share the expected label with the client, but we decided against this to
>> protect against cross-protocol attacks, and also to protect the client
>> against an ACME server giving it arbitrary DNS records to change. If
>> clients calculate this independently, they don’t need to trust the server.
>>
>> 2) The label is longer, so some very very long domain names may no longer
>> work. Since this is 17 characters longer than DNS-01’s label, anything
>> approaching the various limits (of DNS, etc.) may break. For example, if in
>> DNS-01 you end up with a 236-253 character domain name to check for the TXT
>> record, then DNS-ACCOUNT-01 will go over the limit and won’t work. We don’t
>> consider this to be a major problem. We’re also not aware of many domain
>> names in the 236-253 character range.
>>
>> 3) If an ACME client for whatever reason loses access to the ACME
>> account, this “set and forget” DNS label now has to change. Things would
>> break here with other standards too (if you need an EAB token, you can’t
>> create a new account anyways, if you limit the ACME account via CAA
>> records, you can’t issue, etc.) but DNS-ACCOUNT-01 would just add to the
>> things that would have to be taken into account. We don’t currently
>> consider this a huge issue, but if you think it could be, let us know.
>>
>> As you can see, these 3 tradeoffs above had to be made, to ensure we can
>> cover more use cases. We think these are good tradeoffs for an additional
>> ACME challenge, but perhaps they are not for an “upgraded” one.
>>
>> What do you think about the naming? Do you perceive “DNS-02” as an
>> improved version, or as a second option? We are happy to rename this to
>> DNS-02 and we have no plans of breaking any ACME server or client already
>> using DNS-01 :)
>>
>> Thanks for reading through this, and I am happy to hear your thoughts and
>> get reviews on the draft, so we can move further with this work.
>>
>> Antonios Chariton
>> Independent Contributor ;)
>>
>> - - -
>> Links:
>>
>> [0] :
>> https://archive.cabforum.org/pipermail/validation/2023-May/001892.html
>> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://archive.cabforum.org/pipermail/validation/2023-May/001892.html__;!!OToaGQ!r1rAJU8Y16wsZhu9vZIYkTsR0gQG3x5k5iniyAWsEcG3EL1ott1SAH_t6KkJBohTGUxArlzOHToU5usEHb4eLJ-dXGZ7$>
>> [1] : https://daknob.github.io/draft-todo-chariton-dns-account-01/
>> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://daknob.github.io/draft-todo-chariton-dns-account-01/__;!!OToaGQ!r1rAJU8Y16wsZhu9vZIYkTsR0gQG3x5k5iniyAWsEcG3EL1ott1SAH_t6KkJBohTGUxArlzOHToU5usEHb4eLAIe3NHy$>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Acme mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/acme
>> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/acme__;!!OToaGQ!r1rAJU8Y16wsZhu9vZIYkTsR0gQG3x5k5iniyAWsEcG3EL1ott1SAH_t6KkJBohTGUxArlzOHToU5usEHb4eLIdl8lBK$>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Acme mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/acme
>> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/acme__;!!OToaGQ!r1rAJU8Y16wsZhu9vZIYkTsR0gQG3x5k5iniyAWsEcG3EL1ott1SAH_t6KkJBohTGUxArlzOHToU5usEHb4eLIdl8lBK$>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Acme mailing [e-mail]://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/acme <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/acme__;!!OToaGQ!r1rAJU8Y16wsZhu9vZIYkTsR0gQG3x5k5iniyAWsEcG3EL1ott1SAH_t6KkJBohTGUxArlzOHToU5usEHb4eLIdl8lBK$>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Acme mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/acme
>> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/acme__;!!OToaGQ!r1rAJU8Y16wsZhu9vZIYkTsR0gQG3x5k5iniyAWsEcG3EL1ott1SAH_t6KkJBohTGUxArlzOHToU5usEHb4eLIdl8lBK$>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Acme mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/acme
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Acme mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/acme
>