IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Acme] draft-ietf-acme

Daniel Kahn Gillmor <dkg@fifthhorseman.net> Wed, 12 August 2015 18:29 UTC

Return-Path: <dkg@fifthhorseman.net>
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 9E6CE1A1A56 for <acme@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 12 Aug 2015 11:29:10 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] 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 fXa9joKD_p3T for <acme@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 12 Aug 2015 11:29:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from che.mayfirst.org (che.mayfirst.org [209.234.253.108]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 364551A0063 for <acme@ietf.org>; Wed, 12 Aug 2015 11:29:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from fifthhorseman.net (unknown [38.109.115.130]) by che.mayfirst.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 05E92F984; Wed, 12 Aug 2015 14:29:07 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by fifthhorseman.net (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 973442015C; Wed, 12 Aug 2015 20:29:07 +0200 (CEST)
From: Daniel Kahn Gillmor <dkg@fifthhorseman.net>
To: Tony Arcieri <bascule@gmail.com>, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAHOTMVKi=+zQvno+LNmJD=1=vYO3N-8_+GOeJLdgeqi+XJ5wbg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CA+9kkMAF4r_oj31gz6u9mQPSLrrPxS-e2Fpwj0mFJR=qa1xkgQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAHOTMVLuO_Qa+psGk7r0nxd6Fj-Rx=ho2H0Lp_wrsTkeiYGeeg@mail.gmail.com> <CABkgnnXSi623tNMTcWXFeGm48bbJTPG_3Epi_kKxUYBppAfc3g@mail.gmail.com> <CAHOTMVKi=+zQvno+LNmJD=1=vYO3N-8_+GOeJLdgeqi+XJ5wbg@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Notmuch/0.20.2 (http://notmuchmail.org) Emacs/24.5.1 (x86_64-pc-linux-gnu)
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2015 14:29:07 -0400
Message-ID: <87lhdgl5sc.fsf@alice.fifthhorseman.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/acme/r6PB4KFYXnNXaYjRYM65AG180x8>
Cc: "Salz, Rich" <rsalz@akamai.com>, Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com>, "acme@ietf.org" <acme@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Acme] draft-ietf-acme
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: <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, 12 Aug 2015 18:29:10 -0000

On Wed 2015-08-12 14:18:54 -0400, Tony Arcieri wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 11:03 AM, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I don't see that as reason enough to block adoption.
>
> It represents a conceptual misuse of digital signatures, and seems to me
> like a very fundamental design flaw which is easily addressed. I'm confused
> why you don't want to address it before adopting the draft.

I think everyone agrees that Andrew's attack needs to be fixed and the
draft won't make it out of the WG without it being adequately addressed.

But we can fix it just as well in draft -01 as in draft -00.  And
keeping -00 close to the non-WG draft is useful just for making sense of
the way the document has evolved.

I think adopting it before fixing Andrew's attack is fine.  We all know
that this attack needs to be addressed.

     --dkg

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email