IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Acme] Discussion of draft-ietf-acme-ip

Richard Barnes <rlb@ipv.sx> Wed, 20 December 2017 21:51 UTC

Return-Path: <rlb@ipv.sx>
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 BE37C129C51 for <acme@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 20 Dec 2017 13:51:00 -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, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=ipv-sx.20150623.gappssmtp.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 vi83QELVG_6N for <acme@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 20 Dec 2017 13:50:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-wr0-x22b.google.com (mail-wr0-x22b.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c0c::22b]) (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 2D9A9129511 for <acme@ietf.org>; Wed, 20 Dec 2017 13:50:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-wr0-x22b.google.com with SMTP id l41so11336742wre.11 for <acme@ietf.org>; Wed, 20 Dec 2017 13:50:58 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ipv-sx.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=fBHPr5H+4z6C7nCjPXhde/u95Q+HF68wHxayoZW+qJw=; b=zaLl/ekebsUCecZTUD7aoM5bPymEssBMqRMUF3650ti8F/eSTiheMQ0yKHjIyR9tF8 yVaxGCtW6jwZeQ7Hfp+ZohV8npSUQgEkfkO/Q5OHkvqT1cjw/68w2QJFmBwTAsgpj/gv HkGM3RpUfa0y3jr0HE5hVy48LlnLA5zDuVRtkOYqSpVyqZmf06f3jzRekR82ocvEqvgx Of0efw2wtfVbiZqQtG86Wo2RXWrhy5H+vSKek4Z9rYVhiWfpcL2kIy/nVh1HXQkBPZbo 7ErtUy45tA4+xGL7mKaYpus0ecGZJOx6YNYyKAfQQq9Apul3clvAl3H/Mt+AkWsh9jFH 3ajw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=fBHPr5H+4z6C7nCjPXhde/u95Q+HF68wHxayoZW+qJw=; b=V7z+Ie0KjpUIdNmUOfUcqHLEfSH5NvosfxEPKeKk/ECltkD2C7b/x1eSbZ411sU0rL tZv9WqhLe67XCk2ntLBIZzbwLxL3X5fH4ynNXJlxSbJKzhx9cjN5q7op/4Cr/9cd8U5m ArKLnCQyY+n10NGTee8RdWFaAGYQEm6t2Lde/O7NlIdcEAcYt7ULp3seZUvxifZ94hU3 vyoqD0k39dKAWQQP+tbk+cg0Ov4Zlc+dZBW4XLUMqwl0xbdrxaMjD1hY6Zkrk6/yiiQb JostEjWzydB+XW+j/LV1G0Lii8FPcbmllTUY4w+pCBYmHiQ1NhZpORhVzEueyxJh6V9J DnQg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AKGB3mK3050ZA2zxcvtUycIzylFgHQQrkvrQSnT57iJtwCJpe4FfmhIU xINHB4Zf84XZXZQ3hPIHaWuU57V9GqibsB3L+oiMSgo2
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACJfBouz2hjkC4cEmtqZtIBG7gbQpw3Ly0+Urq6/VGwKKLa5sVhhb7MU/1EorT4s9uaRDmwj42l1dI2d8tAzmDndqFI=
X-Received: by 10.223.161.210 with SMTP id v18mr8973104wrv.170.1513806656642; Wed, 20 Dec 2017 13:50:56 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.28.167.74 with HTTP; Wed, 20 Dec 2017 13:50:56 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <676b57df-95c2-4e65-59e2-a3c45a3412c3@eff.org>
References: <ff57fed6-c989-57ec-e7be-2e8eb8240fad@letsencrypt.org> <676b57df-95c2-4e65-59e2-a3c45a3412c3@eff.org>
From: Richard Barnes <rlb@ipv.sx>
Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2017 16:50:56 -0500
Message-ID: <CAL02cgRtnEh6+EnMNc7=xNUxSaSoP_N4Na7nQgtru=PL2Gr09g@mail.gmail.com>
To: Jacob Hoffman-Andrews <jsha@eff.org>
Cc: acme@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="f403045f2ee2073aba0560cc94aa"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/acme/mHKsJ73C8woOWJ1QvdytX9EZkn4>
Subject: Re: [Acme] Discussion of draft-ietf-acme-ip
X-BeenThere: acme@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: Wed, 20 Dec 2017 21:51:01 -0000

On Wed, Dec 20, 2017 at 4:27 PM, Jacob Hoffman-Andrews <jsha@eff.org> wrote:

> On 11/16/2017 02:28 PM, Roland Bracewell Shoemaker wrote:
> > The point of the draft is to provide a method for validating the control
> > of IP addresses in the same way that the ACME draft does for DNS names.
> > This allows ACME implementing CAs to be on an equal footing with
> > existing implementations. The draft does three major things
> >
> > * Adds a IP identifier type
> > * Provides guidance on using http-01 and tls-sni-02 challenges for IP
> > validation
> > * Adds a new challenge, reverse-dns-01, which conforms with CABF B/R
> > Section 3.2.2.5.
> >
> > The only major objection that was previously voiced revolved around the
> > lack of a policy mechanism for allowing a IP/network owner to block
> > issuance and that there should be some kind of default denial required.
> > It is my opinion that this draft is the wrong place for CA policy to be
> > dictated and the right place to fix this problem would be in a document
> > implementing an lookup mechanism for CAA records for IP addresses (see
> > draft-shoemaker-caa-ip).
> >
> > Any major thoughts/objections? If there are no significant hurdles I'd
> > like to move towards getting this document finalized.
>
> Any further thoughts about draft-shoemaker-caa-ip? I'd love to get it
> adopted as a WG document.
>

Do you mean draft-ietf-acme-ip?  It's already adopted; that's what the
"draft-ietf" signifies.

If you think all the open issues are resolved, then we should go to WGLC.
Personally, I have not reviewed it recently.

--Richard



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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email