Re: [Acme] Proposed ACME Charter Language

[Russ Housley <[e-mail]>]

Hotspot 2.0 is behind a paywall: https://www.wi-fi.org/hotspot-20-release-2-technical-specification-package-v110

Russ


On Apr 20, 2015, at 3:04 PM, Stephen Farrell wrote:

> 
> 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 
>> [e-mail] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/acme
>>