Re: [lamps] WG Last Call for rfc6844bis

On Fri, Oct 12, 2018 at 4:25 AM Tim Hollebeek <tim.hollebeek@digicert.com>
wrote:

> LAMPS chair hat off; CABF Validation Subcommittee (formerly, Validation
> Working Group) hat on.
>
> Recently at the CA/Browser Forum, allowing customers to use CAA  to limit
> the validation methods that can be used for a domain has been identified
> as one of the Forum's highest priorities.  I started a thread on the idea
> back
> in December:
>
> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spasm/Jse-FslACq3wair2B2_YSwpViNs
>
> While CAs can potentially unilaterally implement this on their own outside
> the Forum with parameters (as in the acme-caa draft), uniformity
> throughout
> the industry would be desirable.  The Forum also has the ability to
> mandate
> implementation by a specific date.
>
> This was discussed on this morning's Validation Subcommittee call, and it
> was suggested we ask the group if there is interest in including this in
> RFC

>
> 6844-bis, or whether it would be preferable to handle it as a separate
> draft.
>

Handle it as a separate draft, and recharter the WG If there is consensus
to adopt draft text. The charter we have does not include that effort, and
there are more ways to botch it then to get it right. It’s an extension, in
theory, so let it be defined as such in a separate document.

Personally, I believe such an extension would be better spec’d as
Informational (thus, at odds with 6844-bis, which is Standards Track),
because what the Forum “wants” is an extension whose namespace is defined
and maintained by the CA/Browser Forum, not the IETF or IANA, and not
designed to interoperate with other PKIs that use CPs other than the
Baseline Requirements. If members of the Forum want Lamps to adopt such
work, they should first work through what it is they want before asking
Lamps to recharter to consider their industry-specific use case.

So no, don’t add a rechartering discussion for WGLC just because some folks
had an extension they want to figure out.

> -Tim
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Spasm <spasm-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Russ Housley
> > Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2018 2:01 PM
> > To: SPASM <spasm@ietf.org>
> > Subject: [lamps] WG Last Call for rfc6844bis
> >
> > This is the LAMPS WG Last Call for "DNS Certification Authority
> Authorization
> > (CAA) Resource Record" <draft-ietf-lamps-rfc6844bis-01>.
> >
> > Please review the document and send your comments to the list by 22
> > October 2018.
> >
> > If no concerns are raised, the document will be forwarded to the IESG
> with
> a
> > request for publication as Proposed Standard.
> >
> > Russ & Tim
> > _______________________________________________
> > Spasm mailing list
> > Spasm@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spasm
> _______________________________________________
> Spasm mailing list
> Spasm@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spasm
>