Re: [Acme] Proposed ACME Charter Language

Stephen Farrell <> Mon, 20 April 2015 19:04 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 521531B307B for <>; Mon, 20 Apr 2015 12:04:13 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.21
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 ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3L24nB8kTLNA for <>; Mon, 20 Apr 2015 12:04:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F024A1B307D for <>; Mon, 20 Apr 2015 12:04:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 50772BE88; Mon, 20 Apr 2015 20:04:09 +0100 (IST)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id F-wfzcm6XQWr; Mon, 20 Apr 2015 20:04:07 +0100 (IST)
Received: from [] (unknown []) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id CB3FEBE2F; Mon, 20 Apr 2015 20:04:07 +0100 (IST)
Message-ID: <>
Date: Mon, 20 Apr 2015 20:04:07 +0100
From: Stephen Farrell <>
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 <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
OpenPGP: id=D66EA7906F0B897FB2E97D582F3C8736805F8DA2; url=
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Acme] Proposed ACME Charter Language
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Automated Certificate Management Environment <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 20 Apr 2015 19:04:13 -0000


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]



> Russ
> _______________________________________________ Acme mailing list