Re: [Acme] Benjamin Kaduk's Yes on draft-ietf-acme-email-smime-13: (with COMMENT)

Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com> Mon, 15 February 2021 17:50 UTC

Return-Path: <alexey.melnikov@isode.com>
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 669413A0E44; Mon, 15 Feb 2021 09:50:25 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, 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=isode.com
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 fr4PJkDg69SN; Mon, 15 Feb 2021 09:50:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: from waldorf.isode.com (waldorf.isode.com [62.232.206.188]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 093943A0E3F; Mon, 15 Feb 2021 09:50:23 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; t=1613411422; d=isode.com; s=june2016; i=@isode.com; bh=ogyXJt8Ujlfa3yuVDj4r/dzmY7onAy3tOHcmOgRqSr0=; h=From:Sender:Reply-To:Subject:Date:Message-ID:To:Cc:MIME-Version: In-Reply-To:References:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding: Content-ID:Content-Description; b=KXAVpPHl2AaHJ14uhyT1ProanGtGMMayM6w5eNKi/VEvHIXLY7Stkl5Mbcad+v5c+0pQqV IX7Pdny/3xtuk4kDcBS6dVec+UqLSn9m9UtE7LT/2QbKoVi9wVHYhvyEbh8Id4l0HRrPeN fZAzjBD+eqFfyBjx6VYvopODM2IxVH0=;
Received: from [192.168.1.222] (host5-81-100-89.range5-81.btcentralplus.com [5.81.100.89]) by waldorf.isode.com (submission channel) via TCP with ESMTPSA id <YCq0XgAuQSlW@waldorf.isode.com>; Mon, 15 Feb 2021 17:50:22 +0000
From: Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com>
To: Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Cc: rsalz@akamai.com, acme@ietf.org, draft-ietf-acme-email-smime@ietf.org, acme-chairs@ietf.org
References: <161057904471.2324.12947727774252338093@ietfa.amsl.com>
Message-ID: <ffbe7c3b-f1cf-4969-f019-bec550d24fd9@isode.com>
Date: Mon, 15 Feb 2021 17:50:21 +0000
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.7.0
In-Reply-To: <161057904471.2324.12947727774252338093@ietfa.amsl.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Language: en-GB
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/acme/h4zKafo-zX6IG9VPgnmoXmrEDho>
Subject: Re: [Acme] Benjamin Kaduk's Yes on draft-ietf-acme-email-smime-13: (with COMMENT)
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: Mon, 15 Feb 2021 17:50:25 -0000

Hi Ben,

On 13/01/2021 23:04, Benjamin Kaduk via Datatracker wrote:
> Thanks for the updates to get to the -13; they look really good.
>
> The new text did inspire one further comment, though I don't see a
> particular text change that might result, plus I spotted a few editorial nits.
>
> Section 1
>
>     1.  A Mail User Agent (MUA) which has built in ACME client aware of
>         the extension described in this document.  (We will call such
>         ACME clients "ACME-email-aware") Such MUA can present nice User
>         Interface to the user and automate certificate issuance.
>
> (nit?) In the parenthetical, are we calling the ACME clients or the MUA
> "ACME-email-aware"?  Also, full stop for the end of the sentence.
>
> Section 3
>
> (nit?) In step 8, the MUST-level requirement in the last sentence probably
> promotes it into not being a parenthetical.
>
> Section 3.1
>
>            If S/MIME signing is used, the certificate corresponding to
>            the signer MUST have rfc822Name subjectAltName extension with
>            the value equal to the From header field email address of the
>            "challenge" email.
>
> A strict equality requirement might make it operationally challenging to
> use a unique "from" challenge for each request.  I don't see any
> feasible alternative, though, as getting into + suffixes in the local
> part seems like a non-starter for this document.
I am afraid so.
> Also, nit: s/subjectAltName extension/a subjectAltName extension/

Applied all of the above. Thanks.

Best Regards,

Alexey