IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Anima] representing ACP info in X.509 certs

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Wed, 24 June 2020 00:55 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
X-Original-To: anima@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: anima@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8CB733A0B7E for <anima@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 23 Jun 2020 17:55:45 -0700 (PDT)
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, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 KxZwISVNcITq for <anima@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 23 Jun 2020 17:55:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:3:216:3eff:fe7c:d1f3]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 38F8F3A0CF7 for <anima@ietf.org>; Tue, 23 Jun 2020 17:55:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id E9E40389AE for <anima@ietf.org>; Tue, 23 Jun 2020 20:52:59 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id WaWl9bm33w6n for <anima@ietf.org>; Tue, 23 Jun 2020 20:52:59 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2::247]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 48FDA389AC for <anima@ietf.org>; Tue, 23 Jun 2020 20:52:59 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1ECE7400 for <anima@ietf.org>; Tue, 23 Jun 2020 20:55:40 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: Anima WG <anima@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <9c09debe-3463-a574-46cf-cee86a2c68af@verizon.net>
References: <ece7aed3-ede3-5546-4586-1d98d3f71183.ref@verizon.net> <ece7aed3-ede3-5546-4586-1d98d3f71183@verizon.net> <CABcZeBMncZSQOfYsoVS-ZZoSbqZGOg+vQ41OdzAejrRfVozhyQ@mail.gmail.com> <MN2PR11MB3901DD5D6176FEEA43EB9D72DB940@MN2PR11MB3901.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <6981a76f-76f1-e9b2-319d-473c7a4bc847@verizon.net> <6c4e402f-cce6-daff-aa16-6159340f0802@gmail.com> <9c09debe-3463-a574-46cf-cee86a2c68af@verizon.net>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6+git; nmh 1.7+dev; GNU Emacs 26.1
X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m<nPbLgmtKK-5dC@#:k
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="==-=-="; micalg="pgp-sha512"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2020 20:55:40 -0400
Message-ID: <15951.1592960140@localhost>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/anima/PMs6EwYUfILOSM7797nB46DemWU>
Subject: Re: [Anima] representing ACP info in X.509 certs
X-BeenThere: anima@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Autonomic Networking Integrated Model and Approach <anima.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/anima>, <mailto:anima-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/anima/>
List-Post: <mailto:anima@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:anima-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima>, <mailto:anima-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2020 00:55:46 -0000

Stephen Kent <stkent=40verizon.net@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
    > The simple answer is that when, in the past, developers have chosen to abuse
    > the semantics of subject name fields in certs, the result shave been VERY
    > long lasting, and embarrassing. Long ago, Netscape chose to shove a DNS name
    > into the DN common name filed because it was an easy fix for their
    > problem. As a result, we still have browsers and CAs that misuse that
    > field. At least that egregious behavior was not the result of an IETF
    > WG. Let's not screw this up in the name of expediency!

Yes, I remember that.
Why do you think Netscape did that?
What should they have done instead?


--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email