IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Acme] acme subdomains open items

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Tue, 08 December 2020 21:33 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
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 4B06F3A110A for <acme@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 8 Dec 2020 13:33:13 -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, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, 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 LXlVTnZZzJp5 for <acme@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 8 Dec 2020 13:33:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.19]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 12C2A3A0FC0 for <acme@ietf.org>; Tue, 8 Dec 2020 13:33:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1502D389B6; Tue, 8 Dec 2020 16:35:20 -0500 (EST)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id UwKKPJ8DGjZ7; Tue, 8 Dec 2020 16:35:15 -0500 (EST)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2::247]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id CB14E389B5; Tue, 8 Dec 2020 16:35:15 -0500 (EST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9BDA5375; Tue, 8 Dec 2020 16:33:03 -0500 (EST)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: Ryan Sleevi <ryan-ietf@sleevi.com>
cc: "Owen Friel (ofriel)" <ofriel@cisco.com>, Felipe Gasper <felipe@felipegasper.com>, "acme@ietf.org" <acme@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <CAErg=HGM5bmm=oJ1ya8gC3EiW8KQJTq2N3fxisDsgSPYKd=DbQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CY4PR11MB168504F6D4CF495E8AE8F729DBF10@CY4PR11MB1685.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <CA7603D9-DFDA-4FA6-A76C-D4E0E638A956@felipegasper.com> <CY4PR11MB16851AD65ACF736CE6FD55A8DBF10@CY4PR11MB1685.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <CAErg=HEON6756+_3Lfbe=r=3rxV9gAundvG5mBEEOzsKqL8x3w@mail.gmail.com> <CY4PR11MB168593FCC8F11DF836FD12EADBCE0@CY4PR11MB1685.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <CAErg=HHxbhbZQAdf2SRjFVUezmkGcg+OdeZL_ey0AwubxkSVSA@mail.gmail.com> <16962.1607347826@localhost> <CAErg=HGM5bmm=oJ1ya8gC3EiW8KQJTq2N3fxisDsgSPYKd=DbQ@mail.gmail.com>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6+git; nmh 1.7+dev; GNU Emacs 26.1
X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m<nPbLgmtKK-5dC@#:k
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg="pgp-sha512"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Tue, 08 Dec 2020 16:33:03 -0500
Message-ID: <2310.1607463183@localhost>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/acme/cqeL3M41qNBl_mvCZdSxw2xofIk>
Subject: Re: [Acme] acme subdomains open items
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: Tue, 08 Dec 2020 21:33:13 -0000

Ryan Sleevi <ryan-ietf@sleevi.com> wrote:
    >> The client has control over lex.example, but and can prove it with dns-01
    >> TXT
    >> record placed at _acme-challenge.lex.example.  Why does it matter whether
    >> it
    >> is so.me.comp.lex.example or ve.ry.so.me.comp.lex.example.
    >> or an.other.comp.lex.example??


    > The mistake you’ve made here is assuming the client has control over
    > lex.example, and thus all subdomains. The point of all of this is that is
    > an unrealistic assumption: the client may only have control over the DNS
    > zone at so.me.comp.lex.example or they might have control at the
    > me.comp.lex.example, but no control at comp.lex.example.

I don't understand.
If the client doesn't control lex.example, then why would it expect to get
any kind of control of that?
Same as without subdomains.

    > The existing approach with ACME assumes and expects that validation will be
    > done at the FQDN (this is an oversimplification, but the nuance here isn’t
    > as important).

Yes, the FULLY-QUALIFIED.  Not the public name.
dns-01 works just fine today for so.me.comp.lex.example.

The client does not demonstrate control over lex.example using dns-01 when it
asks for so.me.comp.lex.example.

--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>   . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
           Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email