Re: [Acme] Considerations about ACME BoF
Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com> Mon, 30 March 2015 22:01 UTC
Return-Path: <ekr@rtfm.com>
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 95FC81A1A8E for <acme@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 30 Mar 2015 15:01:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.977
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.977 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] 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 UkwUfM0M9Y-9 for <acme@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 30 Mar 2015 15:01:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wi0-f180.google.com (mail-wi0-f180.google.com [209.85.212.180]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 027D31A1A17 for <acme@ietf.org>; Mon, 30 Mar 2015 15:01:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by wibg7 with SMTP id g7so1546904wib.1 for <acme@ietf.org>; Mon, 30 Mar 2015 15:01:11 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type; bh=clX4FFO13/WRBOt72b1T0+1mkfbXZfJmN281PHJ5rb4=; b=kv3qsCXtfz1ru3XqDNLOugu/6CJOHnMql19DcPsC9by/Kq3VF8tjNueZLaqrhLehmI UJiXQ8YFSPmUsFvjM/Lc/3bvkrfrrpnFO74ISaWDTITdxHjNYtLjb3RPF+j0vK1GsLCQ L8XMf6py7Dz/s5rB9ufmmx8km73o7cUST6O3Sib1SyTx7C06hCb+H3jhwWWDvqzhCnYL MgNmNsi9bNqsymwRVi4EERYGktJd5wLi7Rq35LLJ5i+13VM28XN9thxBtRMN+MxjefkX r0+Mg2RSFtqI8JoPBSAEOHFaZRUIahrH4qPgWjyLKkmYzmyWdMDuwDUHoZyLBA9F0pNq 4AzA==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQn8M1ggLAjP0jUFQY1/fDEEXW+TrFPw3+TLACDoicjCJawnmqRoZd987bnSsWhqWE14U+n/
X-Received: by 10.194.178.164 with SMTP id cz4mr66598773wjc.140.1427752871755; Mon, 30 Mar 2015 15:01:11 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.27.205.198 with HTTP; Mon, 30 Mar 2015 15:00:31 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <5519AB4D.7070906@DigiCert.com>
References: <551569F6.8020507@openca.org> <5518F4EA.6020006@sunet.se> <5519AB4D.7070906@DigiCert.com>
From: Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>
Date: Mon, 30 Mar 2015 15:00:31 -0700
Message-ID: <CABcZeBMZ7hby1t_2y_iJee3iRz=PH6-SdRVR-TsktuvCuD5pXA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Scott Rea <Scott.Rea@digicert.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="089e013d1672bf9c4a0512889e78"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/acme/kStFRGtiyzahPo7HzrdzjLF-63M>
Cc: acme@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Acme] Considerations about ACME BoF
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, 30 Mar 2015 22:01:14 -0000
On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 1:00 PM, Scott Rea <Scott.Rea@digicert.com> wrote: > > > On the contrary, letsencrypt could use DANE TLSA records as DV proofs > > which would drive deployment of DANE. > I actually think Max is making the opposite argument - that the proposal > is "anti CA" (or maybe anti X.509) and "pro DANE" and asking for > justification of why we want to move away from the current > implementation base to an unproven trust model that extremely few have > demonstrated a willingness to adopt at this point Hmm, I'm not sure how you and Max got this out of the discussion in the meeting, but perhaps I can clarify. ACME has two potential interactions with DANE. 1. DANE can be used a "proof type" to allow ACME CAs to determine that a given entity controls a given domain. 2. If an ACME CA (or any CA) issues free certificates based on DANE, then this is a potential way to allow DANE-based trust to get wider deployment. This isn't really a property of ACME but rather of free, automatic issuance, regardless of the protocol. But in neither case is ACME really about moving to the DANE trust model. Best, -Ekr
- [Acme] Considerations about ACME BoF Massimiliano Pala
- [Acme] ***UNCHECKED*** Re: Considerations about A… Stephen Farrell
- Re: [Acme] Considerations about ACME BoF Stephen Farrell
- Re: [Acme] Considerations about ACME BoF Anders Rundgren
- Re: [Acme] Considerations about ACME BoF Massimiliano Pala
- Re: [Acme] ***UNCHECKED*** Re: Considerations abo… Martin Thomson
- Re: [Acme] ***UNCHECKED*** Re: Considerations abo… Stephen Farrell
- Re: [Acme] ***UNCHECKED*** Re: Considerations abo… Daniel Kahn Gillmor
- Re: [Acme] Considerations about ACME BoF Leif Johansson
- Re: [Acme] Considerations about ACME BoF Salz, Rich
- Re: [Acme] Considerations about ACME BoF Scott Rea
- Re: [Acme] Considerations about ACME BoF Stephen Farrell
- Re: [Acme] Considerations about ACME BoF Scott Rea
- Re: [Acme] Considerations about ACME BoF Leif Johansson
- Re: [Acme] Considerations about ACME BoF Eric Rescorla
- Re: [Acme] Considerations about ACME BoF Jeremy Rowley
- Re: [Acme] Considerations about ACME BoF Martin Thomson
- Re: [Acme] Considerations about ACME BoF Yaron Sheffer
- Re: [Acme] Considerations about ACME BoF Scott Rea
- Re: [Acme] Considerations about ACME BoF Richard Barnes
- Re: [Acme] Considerations about ACME BoF Salz, Rich
- Re: [Acme] Considerations about ACME BoF Yaron Sheffer
- Re: [Acme] Considerations about ACME BoF Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: [Acme] Considerations about ACME BoF Warren Kumari
- Re: [Acme] Considerations about ACME BoF Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: [Acme] Considerations about ACME BoF Leif Johansson
- Re: [Acme] Considerations about ACME BoF Massimiliano Pala