Re: [lamps] CAA Simplification draft

While this removes the ambiguities with regard to CNAME and DNAME alias
handling I think the definition of the algorithm is still unnecessarily
hard to read. Also references to 'CNAME' should be replaced with
'aliases' since 1034 section 4.3.2 as updated by 6672 also handles
DNAMEs (although to be honest I think any references to specific 1034
4.3.2 behavior can just be removed since they are incorporated simply by
referencing that algorithm).

I'd suggest that Section 4 paragraphs 3-9 be replaced with the following
cleaned up definition using pseudocode and a better explanation of the
steps the algorithm uses in the example:

https://github.com/jsha/caa-simplification/compare/master...rolandshoemaker:alg-cleanup?expand=1

I'd also recommend this RFC be paired down to only section 4 since that
is all that is being changed and make it a 'Updates' instead of
'Obsoletes' style RFC that just redefines the lookup algorithm.

Thanks for doing the work on this! I think taking this approach, of
simplifying the algorithm definition, is better as completely
re-designing the algorithm and using a different record style,
especially given this is what CABF has already adopted, without a well
defined reason is just asking for more problems down the line.

On 09/12/2017 05:23 PM, Jacob Hoffman-Andrews wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> This is a revision to RFC6844 as discussed previously on the list and at
> IETF 99. In particular, RFC6844 specifies that CAs should implement
> "tree climbing" not only on the original FQDN, but also on any
> intermediate CNAMEs discovered during primary lookup. As discussed
> on-list, this disallows certain deployment scenarios, and can produce
> surprising results in common CNAME-based hosting scenarios.
> 
> Additionally, because RFC6844 re-specified parts of CNAME lookup, some
> details were ambiguous. This draft updates RFC6844 to eliminate tree
> climbing on CNAME targets, and to reference RFC 1034 for the standard
> DNS lookup algorithm, including CNAME resolution.
> 
> Because all of this draft is the same as RFC6884 except for the
> "Certification Authority Processing" section, I've retained the original
> two authors and added my own name. Please let me know if IETF etiquette
> indicates a different approach.
> 
> I'd like to propose this draft for adoption by the WG.
> 
> https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-hoffman-andrews-caa-simplification-00.txt
> 
> Thanks,
> Jacob
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Spasm mailing list
> Spasm@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spasm
> 