Re: [lamps] WG Last Call for rfc6844bis

[Tim Hollebeek <[e-mail]>]

 

I actually support not holding up 6844bis and doing it as a separate draft, but people on the call wanted me to find out what the non-CABF LAMPS participants thought.

 

I don’t think extensions to CAA are outside the scope of the charter, or the 6844bis effort for that matter.  Which is why I was willing to ask and see how the group would like to handle it.

 

Also, I was asked by the chair to bring it up during the WGLC, so it is inappropriate for you to try to shut down the discussion.

 

-Tim

 

From: Ryan Sleevi <[e-mail]> 
Sent: Friday, October 12, 2018 5:38 PM
To: Tim Hollebeek <[e-mail]>
Cc: Russ Housley <[e-mail]>; Ryan Sleevi <[e-mail]>; SPASM <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [lamps] WG Last Call for rfc6844bis

 

 

 

On Sat, Oct 13, 2018 at 6:16 AM Tim Hollebeek <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> > wrote:

Your characterization of what the Forum “wants” is at odds with previous discussions in London, where working with IANA was explicitly called out as a goal.

 

Yes, to register the appropriate strings to be associated with an Informational or CA/Browser Forum maintained document.

 

It also is at odds with the unanimous consensus on the last validation call, where everyone agreed that working together with IETF on this was desirable.

 

That’s cool and all, but that’s not how the CA/Browser Forum measures consent (via Ballot), and that’s not at odds with what I suggested. Write a draft, recognize the use cases, and if it to be published in IETF at all, do it as Informational.

 

In any event, you’re talking about something not on the charter, and doing it as soon as WGLC starts - and suggesting delay - is poor choice. Does 6844bis address what Lamps was chartered to do? Yes. Does any of your hypothetical proposal require change to those mechanisms? No. So let’s stop talking about it in WGLC, focus on the charter and the question asked, and once there’s something more to discuss, revisit charter revisions and consensus. But don’t hold up 6844bis to add features to a document designed to be independently extensible.

 

 

 

-Tim

 

From: Ryan Sleevi <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> > 
Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2018 7:13 PM
To: Tim Hollebeek <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> >
Cc: Russ Housley <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> >; SPASM <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> >
Subject: Re: [lamps] WG Last Call for rfc6844bis

 

 

 

On Fri, Oct 12, 2018 at 4:25 AM Tim Hollebeek <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> > 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 <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> > On Behalf Of Russ Housley
> Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2018 2:01 PM
> To: SPASM <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> >
> 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
> [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> 
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spasm
_______________________________________________
Spasm mailing list
[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> 
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spasm