Re: [Acme] ACME draft is now in WGLC.

Viktor Dukhovni <ietf-dane@dukhovni.org> Tue, 07 March 2017 03:20 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf-dane@dukhovni.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 88B42129AC5 for <acme@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 6 Mar 2017 19:20:29 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 2cQnXAajiw0b for <acme@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 6 Mar 2017 19:20:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mournblade.imrryr.org (mournblade.imrryr.org [108.5.242.66]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8953C129AC7 for <acme@ietf.org>; Mon, 6 Mar 2017 19:20:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mournblade.imrryr.org (Postfix, from userid 1034) id 8F68C7A3309; Tue, 7 Mar 2017 03:20:23 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Tue, 07 Mar 2017 03:20:23 +0000
From: Viktor Dukhovni <ietf-dane@dukhovni.org>
To: "acme@ietf.org" <acme@ietf.org>
Message-ID: <20170307032023.GO7733@mournblade.imrryr.org>
References: <8473d9ba84894d49b2f2232370d66b46@usma1ex-dag1mb3.msg.corp.akamai.com> <20170307031510.GN7733@mournblade.imrryr.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20170307031510.GN7733@mournblade.imrryr.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.7.2 (2016-11-26)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/acme/bhHD8e0sBvBOEPIlnuLehUdxDOs>
Subject: Re: [Acme] ACME draft is now in WGLC.
X-BeenThere: acme@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
Reply-To: acme@ietf.org
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: Tue, 07 Mar 2017 03:20:29 -0000

On Tue, Mar 07, 2017 at 03:15:10AM +0000, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 07, 2017 at 05:27:48PM +0000, Salz, Rich wrote:
> 
> > I put the time period as six weeks, which takes us to just around IETF-98...
> > 
> > PLEASE reply on list if you will review and/or are interested in working on interop. 
> 
> I see there's no reference to use of DNSSEC resolvers by CAs that
> implement DNS challenges.  Just a suggestion to send probes from
> multiple networks to avoid MiTM attacks, which seems rather weak
> to me.  The MiTM might be collocated near the victim rather than
> the CA.
> 
> There was some brief discussion of DNSSEC back in Oct/2015:
> 
>     https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/acme/current/thrd3.html#00561
> 
> 	https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/acme/current/msg00561.html
> 	https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/acme/current/msg00562.html
> 	https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/acme/current/msg00563.html
> 	https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/acme/current/msg00564.html
> 	https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/acme/current/msg00565.html
> 	https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/acme/current/msg00729.html
> 
> but no further action.  Is there a compellng reason to avoid
> requiring acme CAs to spin up a validating resolver?  It does not
> seem like a lot to ask.  If a domain is DNSSEC-signed then its ACME
> challenge should IMHO be validated via DNSSEC.

Specifically, it 10.3 use of DNSSEC is a RECOMMENDATION, not a
requirement:

    https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-acme-acme-05#section-10.3

I would have expected a requirement here.

-- 
	Viktor.