IETF Logo Mail Archive

[Acme] AD review: draft-ietf-acme-ip-05

Roman Danyliw <rdd@cert.org> Tue, 16 April 2019 15:53 UTC

Return-Path: <rdd@cert.org>
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 0935F120A28 for <acme@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 16 Apr 2019 08:53:57 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, 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=cert.org
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 nySCuzq7APvF for <acme@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 16 Apr 2019 08:53:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from veto.sei.cmu.edu (veto.sei.cmu.edu [147.72.252.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 00E821206E7 for <acme@ietf.org>; Tue, 16 Apr 2019 07:43:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from delp.sei.cmu.edu (delp.sei.cmu.edu [10.64.21.31]) by veto.sei.cmu.edu (8.14.7/8.14.7) with ESMTP id x3GEh7F2028323 for <acme@ietf.org>; Tue, 16 Apr 2019 10:43:07 -0400
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 veto.sei.cmu.edu x3GEh7F2028323
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cert.org; s=yc2bmwvrj62m; t=1555425787; bh=nSIEjStcenWR30luG9CXrxyPsPsKE24p4XPHFJfqd2U=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:From; b=KN5ThkCzNSDB+4fxw9IcJthy20RjwF7eezz1cGhGfGof5AIPMPWn3pHcJnLtb7JI2 m+YBSa2GfL05lzbOwwaFm77tJi4uKci7G93KShKQtLCmfEATCbl569gUx1JRzFhowS Q1tjT71tQx27JIBKBVXNsIgnvMpM+5/AlYbDGfwE=
Received: from CASSINA.ad.sei.cmu.edu (cassina.ad.sei.cmu.edu [10.64.28.249]) by delp.sei.cmu.edu (8.14.7/8.14.7) with ESMTP id x3GEh0Ib006436 for <acme@ietf.org>; Tue, 16 Apr 2019 10:43:00 -0400
Received: from MARATHON.ad.sei.cmu.edu ([10.64.28.250]) by CASSINA.ad.sei.cmu.edu ([10.64.28.249]) with mapi id 14.03.0439.000; Tue, 16 Apr 2019 10:43:00 -0400
From: Roman Danyliw <rdd@cert.org>
To: "acme@ietf.org" <acme@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: AD review: draft-ietf-acme-ip-05
Thread-Index: AdT0YiLxtXd5fa2kTlqoTi20CQlkAg==
Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2019 14:42:59 +0000
Message-ID: <359EC4B99E040048A7131E0F4E113AFC01B33396F1@marathon>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.64.22.6]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/acme/mT5fMzw-g4kGay8vwQ1I2yhNSHo>
Subject: [Acme] AD review: draft-ietf-acme-ip-05
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: Tue, 16 Apr 2019 15:54:01 -0000

Hi!

I'm pickup up where ekr left off on draft-ietf-acme-ip.  I see that -05 addressed some of the feedback from:

https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/acme/bGQtdDZ8i75t3dCt3EjPHxsGoG4

I have a few other items:

(1) A bit of clean-up is needed in the references:
** [FIPS180-4] [RFC4291] [RFC4648]  appear in the references but are not cited in the text
** [I-D.ietf-acme-acme] is now RFC8555

(2) Missing security considerations.  It appears that in pruning the text from -04 to -05, this required section was dropped.  Among other things, please include the clarity suggested here:

https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/acme/j8peTskrxupK0AyJyJomS99iOqw

(3) Section 8.1 -- I recommend clearer language in the IANA considerations 8.1 by fully spelling out the registry names and ensure the registry column names align with this text:

OLD: Adds a new type to the Identifier list defined in Section 9.7.7 of [I-D.ietf-acme-acme] with the label "ip" and reference I-D.ietf-acme-ip.
NEW: Adds a new type to the "ACME Identifier Types" registry defined in Section 9.7.7 of [RFC8555] with a Label "ip" and Reference to this draft.

(4) Section 8.2 - I think the intent of this IANA action is to have "ip" be an Identifier Type for the Labels "http-01" and "tls-alpn-01" in "ACME Validation Methods" registry.  This text isn't clear to me on execution - is text proposing (option #1) to modifying the existing entry in the registry (my read of the text, but two identifier types doesn't seem to be supported in the RFC8555 text), or (option #2) add another registry entry?  Is it:

(option #1) http-01, dns and ip

OR

(option #2) http-01, dns
http-01, ip   

Regards,
Roman

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email