Re: [Acme] Proposed ACME Charter Language

Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com> Tue, 21 April 2015 10:54 UTC

Return-Path: <housley@vigilsec.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 A57F91A9136 for <acme@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 21 Apr 2015 03:54:11 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -101.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 bpMFrWjGdz9V for <acme@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 21 Apr 2015 03:54:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from odin.smetech.net (x-bolt-wan.smeinc.net [209.135.219.146]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6CEDF1A912B for <acme@ietf.org>; Tue, 21 Apr 2015 03:54:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (unknown [209.135.209.5]) by odin.smetech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id C0AC39A401A; Tue, 21 Apr 2015 06:53:57 -0400 (EDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at smetech.net
Received: from odin.smetech.net ([209.135.209.4]) by localhost (ronin.smeinc.net [209.135.209.5]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id zJ-oYjOoaTeM; Tue, 21 Apr 2015 06:53:34 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from [192.168.2.100] (pool-96-255-133-185.washdc.fios.verizon.net [96.255.133.185]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by odin.smetech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8544D9A4021; Tue, 21 Apr 2015 06:53:34 -0400 (EDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1085)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
From: Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com>
In-Reply-To: <55354DA7.9010705@cs.tcd.ie>
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2015 06:53:23 -0400
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <9967F47E-89C4-4287-A8B2-2031F9A76395@vigilsec.com>
References: <6A9C3116-8CC9-472C-8AA8-F555D060834C@vigilsec.com> <55351EAB.1060905@cs.tcd.ie> <E81896AA-245F-48B7-9B38-86AC30D2F82A@vigilsec.com> <553523E4.2090808@cs.tcd.ie> <84718B26-1DA3-4D46-8B6F-B615806229D7@vigilsec.com> <55352A7D.2080201@cs.tcd.ie> <5F92A116-C190-44D7-BB06-C78156A18D15@vigilsec.com> <55354DA7.9010705@cs.tcd.ie>
To: Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1085)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/acme/pZ1_VCIzeEBN59TJtW09PawkHj4>
Cc: IETF ACME <acme@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Acme] Proposed ACME Charter Language
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: Tue, 21 Apr 2015 10:54:11 -0000

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