[Acme] Second AD Review: draft-ietf-acme-tls-alpn

Roman Danyliw <rdd@cert.org> Fri, 21 June 2019 11:58 UTC

Return-Path: <rdd@cert.org>
X-Original-To: acme@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: acme@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7F403120234 for <acme@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 21 Jun 2019 04:58:04 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cert.org
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 sWfwdpcrLssM for <acme@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 21 Jun 2019 04:58:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from taper.sei.cmu.edu (taper.sei.cmu.edu [147.72.252.16]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9B28A120233 for <acme@ietf.org>; Fri, 21 Jun 2019 04:58:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from korb.sei.cmu.edu (korb.sei.cmu.edu [10.64.21.30]) by taper.sei.cmu.edu (8.14.7/8.14.7) with ESMTP id x5LBw089004194 for <acme@ietf.org>; Fri, 21 Jun 2019 07:58:00 -0400
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 taper.sei.cmu.edu x5LBw089004194
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cert.org; s=yc2bmwvrj62m; t=1561118280; bh=Ilww/BD0iTYkrng1TVbvt/+7FPeov8/BFMlczksvYD4=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:From; b=kw6ti8unYN7ftFl18vDDK2oRASLLblZw8JV9znpLkmKEu5mjgSU0rF76Bg8vzF2il NKy2BJdJujQdzOcCSZJXA3v1QcUSbGCXcMHuXO3XRynBnm+US6jDCz5d8FlnnaGsb3 jpWkE9K8BduvVBLXS31B0Um909wQ6PvXMUhlfFLw=
Received: from CASCADE.ad.sei.cmu.edu (cascade.ad.sei.cmu.edu [10.64.28.248]) by korb.sei.cmu.edu (8.14.7/8.14.7) with ESMTP id x5LBvuZS019277 for <acme@ietf.org>; Fri, 21 Jun 2019 07:57:56 -0400
Received: from MARATHON.ad.sei.cmu.edu ([10.64.28.250]) by CASCADE.ad.sei.cmu.edu ([10.64.28.248]) with mapi id 14.03.0439.000; Fri, 21 Jun 2019 07:57:56 -0400
From: Roman Danyliw <rdd@cert.org>
To: "acme@ietf.org" <acme@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Second AD Review: draft-ietf-acme-tls-alpn
Thread-Index: AdUoI6JHWlN/zcY7T0GgFt9Im29Pcw==
Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2019 11:57:56 +0000
Message-ID: <359EC4B99E040048A7131E0F4E113AFC01B33A0AD9@marathon>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.64.22.6]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/acme/YW9rho7i1YjLd32k-MDYX4p2dSU>
Subject: [Acme] Second AD Review: draft-ietf-acme-tls-alpn
X-BeenThere: acme@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Fri, 21 Jun 2019 11:58:05 -0000

Hi!

I conducted as second AD review of draft-ietf-acme-tls-apln per the AD hand-off.  I have the following feedback/questions:

** Please address the issues from AD Review #1 and update the text as discussed on the ML (specifically about Section 3 and Section 6):
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/acme/LQ-_rdrH5xVSxW64T7w3LONZ1RM

** Section 3.  (My ASN.1 foo is lacking but ...)  Per the ASN.1 format of acmeIdentifier, where is id-pe defined?  The descriptive text mentions an "extnValue" in the "id-pe-acmeIdentifier extension" where is that defined?

** Section 3 and Section 3.1.  Per:

Section 3: Once the TLS handshake has been completed the connection MUST be immediately closed and no further data should be exchanged.
Vs. 
Section 3.1: Once the handshake is completed the client MUST NOT exchange any further data with the server and MUST immediately close the connection.

Why does Section 3 and 3.1 provide slightly different normative language about closing the TLS connections and not exchanging data.  I don't think we need both.

** Section 4.  The Security Considerations of RFC8555 hold too.

Below is additional editorial feedback:

** Section 3.  The list of fields, type and token, doesn't follow from the introductory sentence.  Provide some transition and introduction on the presence of those fields.

** Section 3.  Cite the base64url alphabet.

** Section 3. The purpose of the two HTTP blob isn't made clear; they aren't referenced in the text; and don't have a figure number.  

** Section 3.  Specify that that the format is acmeIdentifier ASN.1 as:
   [X680]     ITU-T, "Information technology -- Abstract Syntax Notation
              One (ASN.1): Specification of basic notation",
              ITU-T Recommendation X.680, 2015.

** Section 3.  Cite ASN.1 DER encoding as:
    [X690]     ITU-T, "Information Technology -- ASN.1 encoding rules:
              Specification of Basic Encoding Rules (BER), Canonical
              Encoding Rules (CER) and Distinguished Encoding Rules
              (DER)", ITU-T Recommendation X.690, 2015.

** Section 3.  Cite "SNI extension" (RFC6066) on first use

** Section 3.  Step 4.  Per "Verify that the ServerHello", consider re-writing this sentence so it doesn't use "contains" five times.

** Section 3.  Step 4.  Typo (missing period).
s/Note that as ACME doesn't support Unicode identifiers all dNSNames MUST be encoded using the [RFC3492] rules./Note that as ACME doesn't support Unicode identifiers.  All dNSNames MUST be encoded using the [RFC3492] rules./

** Section 7.  Typo.  s/specication/specification/

Roman