Re: [lamps] CAA tags

Ryan Sleevi <ryan-ietf@sleevi.com> Tue, 19 December 2017 19:15 UTC

Return-Path: <ryan-ietf@sleevi.com>
X-Original-To: spasm@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: spasm@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DC684126DED for <spasm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 19 Dec 2017 11:15:53 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.498
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.498 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_SORBS_WEB=1.5, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=sleevi.com
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 fzRoUCnsVLoC for <spasm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 19 Dec 2017 11:15:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: from homiemail-a111.g.dreamhost.com (sub4.mail.dreamhost.com [69.163.253.135]) (using TLSv1.1 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C065D1200F1 for <spasm@ietf.org>; Tue, 19 Dec 2017 11:15:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: from homiemail-a111.g.dreamhost.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by homiemail-a111.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8BAB33C001C15 for <spasm@ietf.org>; Tue, 19 Dec 2017 11:15:52 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=sleevi.com; h=mime-version :in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to:cc :content-type; s=sleevi.com; bh=Saz5B1a6A7joWFl16G3n9zVvFlU=; b= JaIpTqrZ5UnVuhYlTKK3qv5RmloiER9rNaPLgoAE2YKEBDbtvzmTyK7eGvwuc0kL Xm/8wYHu28VQcNwVmukQXtADAR2JcYI8d3d4vqh9b5K78uAJ8UkZDolvHumZzBXZ 6KHM9Gp7tzDELe8zgwT622hkvJ+AQAOdGQ9AMu4MPZg=
Received: from mail-it0-f45.google.com (mail-it0-f45.google.com [209.85.214.45]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: ryan@sleevi.com) by homiemail-a111.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 7C6333C001C17 for <spasm@ietf.org>; Tue, 19 Dec 2017 11:15:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-it0-f45.google.com with SMTP id r6so4037099itr.3 for <spasm@ietf.org>; Tue, 19 Dec 2017 11:15:52 -0800 (PST)
X-Gm-Message-State: AKGB3mJ/FFfu0RWD4w3kghMxAs4XXRCInTeYFPFRgDstFEh1rvNwJ6/E +Mhogr7MeZDdTJhx3FhCsuLwQuWJYPTpIdaOEeQ=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACJfBoszJw4JeYTdNw2NiZk5OZxHVYK+vbSPd2vAYKZBsE1/4fx9vKrMmEiu3eIkjWHM5H86kyLzoAZRLXfN/S96Bro=
X-Received: by 10.36.74.134 with SMTP id k128mr4557747itb.93.1513710951667; Tue, 19 Dec 2017 11:15:51 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.2.78.70 with HTTP; Tue, 19 Dec 2017 11:15:50 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <DM5PR14MB12894853413B1055CEF6FA74830F0@DM5PR14MB1289.namprd14.prod.outlook.com>
References: <DM5PR14MB1289FA2B76543ABAF16FD0EF830E0@DM5PR14MB1289.namprd14.prod.outlook.com> <CAErg=HEL93NpPjEZnAFQD3Epk5dHW41qmXJGOPA_7wvKvmsGJA@mail.gmail.com> <DM5PR14MB12894853413B1055CEF6FA74830F0@DM5PR14MB1289.namprd14.prod.outlook.com>
From: Ryan Sleevi <ryan-ietf@sleevi.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2017 14:15:50 -0500
X-Gmail-Original-Message-ID: <CAErg=HG1S9LHhW03KeakaX50+eX5ztjH_uosvV1O4wcnPP83YA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAErg=HG1S9LHhW03KeakaX50+eX5ztjH_uosvV1O4wcnPP83YA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Tim Hollebeek <tim.hollebeek@digicert.com>
Cc: Ryan Sleevi <ryan-ietf@sleevi.com>, Jacob Hoffman-Andrews <jsha@eff.org>, "spasm@ietf.org" <spasm@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a1144918e9141820560b64b44"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spasm/5mF_Huz5x1f7IJI6TatnJwU4MKg>
Subject: Re: [lamps] CAA tags
X-BeenThere: spasm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: "This is a venue for discussion of doing Some Pkix And SMime \(spasm\) work." <spasm.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/spasm>, <mailto:spasm-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/spasm/>
List-Post: <mailto:spasm@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:spasm-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spasm>, <mailto:spasm-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2017 19:15:54 -0000

Thanks for clarifying. From your original e-mail, it wasn't clear if you
were taking a particular position on the property tags vs parameters,
and/or what considerations fed into such discussions. That's where having
the problem statement (or 'explainer', as its called in some SDO circles)
and use cases is useful to explore these tradeoffs :)

On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 9:50 AM, Tim Hollebeek <tim.hollebeek@digicert.com>
wrote:

> As I noted in the preface to my initial email in this thread [1], one
> other person has pointed out the same thing to me.  I noted that not only
> is this an option, but it solves two problems with the original proposal,
> so I’m personally leaning towards it.  We’ll see what other CAs think.
>
>
>
> That is, why is the set of policy not
>
>
>
> CAA issue 0 "example.com"
>
> CAA issue 0 "example.net"
>
> CAA validation 128 "type=EV method=1,2,3,4"
>
>
>
> On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 12:41 PM, Tim Hollebeek <
> tim.hollebeek@digicert.com> wrote:
>
> Note that it has been privately pointed out to me that one possible
> solution to the criticality problem and the scaling problem is to use
> top-level tags that are independent of the issue records:
>
> CAA 0 issue “a.example.com”
>
> CAA 0 issue “b.example.com”
>
> CAA 128 validation “Phone”
>
>