Return-Path: 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 46E291A6F13 for ; Fri, 15 May 2015 12:20:20 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.977 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.977 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] 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 B9lvL8L1-bef for ; Fri, 15 May 2015 12:20:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-la0-f42.google.com (mail-la0-f42.google.com [209.85.215.42]) (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 B4F471A1BE9 for ; Fri, 15 May 2015 12:20:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: by lagv1 with SMTP id v1so135110168lag.3 for ; Fri, 15 May 2015 12:20:16 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=lF/VKwMKQpHgPj/gAAgqg7RKdKlebQIeZ7mrd53/ttc=; b=Qb1r8cpEodIbWQvxdmXNOSi8JnwAY3idwwefHteslGjexjGrwStDkWBIEVRN3m6DRD TIm89FJZg7+V7NiBhaxJUuBZiLfVkRQTZ/hT0mRlaX5dHbHNmpMDledg6h4X+sP8fFT1 wO23OqkVmUeqTNANiT3+KNziPa+2yaOjEcsEsT2QJkwAHbJjwUy8I/X4ZCnfRkLkLR5u OOgbhQ056hEjR/SmKvGRRzKu/IxcveTQVeAKZBXYNDYPCbYURw69f4CExJppMiByrGY5 BBD86znH5ioVEj9/325StFbC84pRxlhDpGfw0DeFs0aRiMbsZN2dnuAdZ7nNFnY9IO0c Kiig== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnfbLejIFfox0OykIhiJoJtEB2iXH/oQNo1uzp1ZBaBBUsNe42EVzcIqOkgHejbH/A88jou MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.152.203.162 with SMTP id kr2mr8367551lac.68.1431717616155; Fri, 15 May 2015 12:20:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.25.214.162 with HTTP; Fri, 15 May 2015 12:20:16 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <55563ECE.2020708@cs.tcd.ie> References: <55563AB8.4050608@cs.tcd.ie> <55563ECE.2020708@cs.tcd.ie> Date: Fri, 15 May 2015 15:20:16 -0400 Message-ID: From: Richard Barnes To: Stephen Farrell Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11346326ee140e051623bbca Archived-At: Cc: "Salz, Rich" , Ted Hardie , "acme@ietf.org" , Kathleen Moriarty Subject: Re: [Acme] Current Charter language X-BeenThere: acme@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Automated Certificate Management Environment List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 15 May 2015 19:20:20 -0000 --001a11346326ee140e051623bbca Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 2:45 PM, Stephen Farrell wrote: > > > On 15/05/15 19:38, Ted Hardie wrote: > > On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 11:28 AM, Stephen Farrell < > stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie> wrote: > >> >> >> On 15/05/15 19:09, Salz, Rich wrote: >> >> Any other obvious edits needed? >> > >> > LGTM >> >> (no hats) >> >> Me too. I like it and figure it's good enough. >> >> The only thing I'd suggest maybe adding is the illustrative goal >> that an "apt-get install apache" should be able to get the required >> certificates for a web server automatically, if there is an acme >> server that is willing to automate that far. And that a subsequent >> "apt-get upgrade" on that box should ensure that the certificate >> stuff needed for that apache install gets renewed if necessary. >> >> I can see that it might be tricky to phrase that in language >> that works in a charter though, but maybe someone's feeling nicely >> creative. >> >> > =E2=80=8B Well, at the moment we says this: > > "All of the processing must be done in a manner that is compatible > with common service deployment environments, such as hosting > environments.=E2=80=8B" > > Perhaps we can add something just after like this: > > "Simplicity in certificate installation and maintenance are > key design goals. Enabling this process to be incorporated > into the standard installation and upgrades of web servers > via a single command line invocation or flag would be > especially desirable". > > That's less catchy than "apt-get install acme-cert", but it > may be more charter-y. > > Is that worth doing? > > I like it anyway. I'm fine if you'd prefer to go ahead without > it though, > I like the charter better without it, tbh. I don't think there's any ambiguity in what we're after in this dimension :) > S. > > Ted > > > > >> The reason to want this in (for me) is that I think that example >> can ground the work and be useful to head off some potential rat >> holes that might otherwise crop up. And it captures the by far >> most important requirement for acme to meet which is good to keep >> in front of us. >> >> Cheers, >> S >> >> > >> > -- >> > Senior Architect, Akamai Technologies >> > IM: richsalz@jabber.at Twitter: RichSalz >> > _______________________________________________ >> > Acme mailing list >> > Acme@ietf.org >> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/acme >> > >> > >> > > > > _______________________________________________ > Acme mailing list > Acme@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/acme > > --001a11346326ee140e051623bbca Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 2:45 PM, Stephen Farrell <= stephen.farr= ell@cs.tcd.ie> wrote:
=20 =20 =20


On 15/05/15 19:38, Ted Hardie wrote:
On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 11:28 AM, Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie> wrote:


On 15/05/15 19:09, Salz, Rich wrote:
>> Any other obvious edits needed?
>
> LGTM

(no hats)

Me too. I like it and figure it's good enough.

The only thing I'd suggest maybe adding is the illustrative goal
that an "apt-get install apache" should be able to = get the required
certificates for a web server automatically, if there is an acme
server that is willing to automate that far. And that a subsequent
"apt-get upgrade" on that box should ensure that th= e certificate
stuff needed for that apache install gets renewed if necessary.

I can see that it might be tricky to phrase that in language
that works in a charter though, but maybe someone's feeling nicely
creative.


= =E2=80=8B Well, at the moment we says this:

"All of the processing must be done in a manner that i= s compatible
with common service deployment environments, such as hosting
environments.=E2=80=8B"

= Perhaps we can add something just after like this:

= "Simplicity in certificate installation and maintenance are
= key design goals.=C2=A0 Enabling this process to be incorporate= d
= into the standard installation and upgrades of web servers
= via a single command line invocation or flag would be
= especially desirable".

= That's less catchy than "apt-get install acme-cert", but= it
= may be more charter-y.

= Is that worth doing?
I like it anyway. I'm fine if you'd prefer to go ahead without<= br> it though,

I like the charter= better without it, tbh.=C2=A0 I don't think there's any ambiguity = in what we're after in this dimension :)
=C2=A0
S.

= Ted


=C2=A0
The reason to want this in (for me) is that I think that example
can ground the work and be useful to head off some potential rat
holes that might otherwise crop up. And it captures the by far
most important requirement for acme to meet which is good to keep
in front of us.

Cheers,
S

>
> --
> Senior Architect, Akamai Technologies
> IM: richsalz@jabber.at Twitter: RichSalz
> _______________________________________________
> Acme mailing list
> Acme@= ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/acme
>
>



_______________________________________________
Acme mailing list
Acme@ietf.org
ht= tps://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/acme


--001a11346326ee140e051623bbca--