Re: [Acme] Proposed ACME Charter Language

Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie> Mon, 20 April 2015 19:04 UTC

Return-Path: <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
X-Original-To: acme@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: acme@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 521531B307B for <acme@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 20 Apr 2015 12:04:13 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.21
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.21 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
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 3L24nB8kTLNA for <acme@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 20 Apr 2015 12:04:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mercury.scss.tcd.ie (mercury.scss.tcd.ie [134.226.56.6]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F024A1B307D for <acme@ietf.org>; Mon, 20 Apr 2015 12:04:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mercury.scss.tcd.ie (Postfix) with ESMTP id 50772BE88; Mon, 20 Apr 2015 20:04:09 +0100 (IST)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at scss.tcd.ie
Received: from mercury.scss.tcd.ie ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mercury.scss.tcd.ie [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id F-wfzcm6XQWr; Mon, 20 Apr 2015 20:04:07 +0100 (IST)
Received: from [10.87.48.73] (unknown [86.46.17.62]) by mercury.scss.tcd.ie (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id CB3FEBE2F; Mon, 20 Apr 2015 20:04:07 +0100 (IST)
Message-ID: <55354DA7.9010705@cs.tcd.ie>
Date: Mon, 20 Apr 2015 20:04:07 +0100
From: Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com>
References: <6A9C3116-8CC9-472C-8AA8-F555D060834C@vigilsec.com> <55351EAB.1060905@cs.tcd.ie> <E81896AA-245F-48B7-9B38-86AC30D2F82A@vigilsec.com> <553523E4.2090808@cs.tcd.ie> <84718B26-1DA3-4D46-8B6F-B615806229D7@vigilsec.com> <55352A7D.2080201@cs.tcd.ie> <5F92A116-C190-44D7-BB06-C78156A18D15@vigilsec.com>
In-Reply-To: <5F92A116-C190-44D7-BB06-C78156A18D15@vigilsec.com>
OpenPGP: id=D66EA7906F0B897FB2E97D582F3C8736805F8DA2; url=
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/acme/jnD-hI3UMSY4IYKjRGCm2Ukl0jE>
Cc: IETF ACME <acme@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Acme] Proposed ACME Charter Language
X-BeenThere: acme@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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, 20 Apr 2015 19:04:13 -0000

Hiya,

On 20/04/15 17:40, Russ Housley wrote:
> Stephen:
> 
>>> I'm willing to assume that an attempt to replace things that
>>> people are using will meet with vigorous discussion.
>> 
>> Right. People are using CMC, but not afaik when dealing with any 
>> public CAs for getting certificates for public Internet services. I
>> think CMP has some similar but much smaller set of real uses. (*) 
>> And I'm not sure if EST has gotten traction. SCEP has uses but 
>> that's another kettle of cans of worms and fish;-)
>> 
>> I think it would be better to have the vigorous discussion about 
>> CMC vs.ACME-JSON-etc (if that's the one we need to have) before we
>> form the WG. But is that in fact the meat of your concern here? If
>> so, then I assume you'd be arguing for use of CMC/CRMF PDUs in ACME
>> messages. If not, I'm not back to being puzzled. Can you clarify?
> 
> I was not concerned about CMC, CMP, or SCEP.  My concern is around
> EST.  The Hotspot spec points to it, and we should see if others are
> using it.

(Do you have a ref for the hotspot spec? I don't know that one.)

Anyway EST carries (a profile of) CMC messages [1] doesn't it? So
aren't we really asking about use of CMC-defined, ASN.1 encoded
payloads here after all?

In case it helps, I think (open to correction of course) that everyone
would be fine with re-using and not duplicating PKCS#10, at least for
RSA, since that is what is well supported by well deployed code. And
that seems to be in the current ACME draft. [2] So I think we're mostly
talking about the bits and pieces of CMC/CRMF that go beyond PKCS#10 -
and it's those that are afaik unused and where we oughtn't be fussed
about duplicating (should that be what the WG wants).

I do agree that we might want to think some more if there's significant
deployment of EST somewhere relevant, or if a good argument that that's
highly likely can be made.

I also agree that asking the question "why isn't EST good enough" is
totally valid, and that it'd be great if someone would summarise the
earlier thread on that. [3]

Cheers,
S.

[1] https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7030#section-3
[2] https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-barnes-acme-01#section-4
[3] https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/acme/current/msg00003.html



> 
> Russ
> 
> _______________________________________________ Acme mailing list 
> Acme@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/acme
>