Re: [Acme] Proposed ACME Charter Language

[Phillip Hallam-Baker <[e-mail]>]

On Wed, May 13, 2015 at 7:39 PM, Salz, Rich <[e-mail]> wrote:

> > https://github.com/letsencrypt/acme-spec/issues
>
> I'd prefer if we just recorded issues there, but discussed them in the
> mailing list.


I would prefer if we avoid getting into practices and policy issues there
as well.

An IETF working group has a finite lifetime and a limited constituency.
Both make it a bad place to decide security policy. We write 'Security
Considerations' not 'Security requirements'.

Validation processes are like algorithms. The IETF can recommend but can't
make a final decision. I think we all agree that it would be a bad thing if
RFC5280 had made SHA-1 support a MUST and that this has in effect been
superseded and this is a good thing.

I don't think we are very likely to be changing crypto algorithms very
frequently in the future. We seem to have a grip on those. But validation
processes seem to me to be something that are not just likely to change, we
would want to keep a watchful eye on.

It isn't even the case that stronger validation mechanisms are necessarily
better or necessarily necessary. We are going to a world where security is
going to be required and insecurity becomes the exception. We are not going
to a world where perfect security is required though. If 'some' security is
required we can get rid of the low assurance security signal (aka padlock
icon) and replace it with a danger signal. for no security.