[TLS] Re: Adoption Call for Trust Anchor IDs

Brendan McMillion <brendanmcmillion@gmail.com> Fri, 17 January 2025 00:41 UTC

Return-Path: <brendanmcmillion@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: tls@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tls@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F0610C15155E for <tls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 16 Jan 2025 16:41:38 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.095
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.095 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_KAM_HTML_FONT_INVALID=0.01, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Md4v8IAqcJQ0 for <tls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 16 Jan 2025 16:41:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ua1-x935.google.com (mail-ua1-x935.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::935]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (P-256) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4A849C151069 for <tls@ietf.org>; Thu, 16 Jan 2025 16:41:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-ua1-x935.google.com with SMTP id a1e0cc1a2514c-85c5a913cffso818237241.0 for <tls@ietf.org>; Thu, 16 Jan 2025 16:41:35 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20230601; t=1737074494; x=1737679294; darn=ietf.org; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=FBSJm4krVbq3/BdnPGCwoAh/ZFQy08fz2HA8xbBR+GM=; b=kN9+dHCTS8hjuUlHnTfWNG4PK1fh4oyo9Thqb2DvQQw+oNli/jammlrThO0oCI6HgL RtzRkngUCC/aubk8jwjrsuUvYda30k4J8JuZDHSf+grly2mTFx/Mu6BjoH8HZm6MtsUm C6AylUQ1NOn3XBN6aMpnBaJ8f75JHL6RtuRz9m32x6Uti7Nb0I8+W8HI+1tuA3XE3Jr9 HPdtdMW3n+AVmQGcTnChfsZyNsFwYcIQLN7fRyggFcj6ebrGgwHbThGjZZl72k7uBMiL /xwRWh+eqFqws3pki48MnrNQdmFmkPIMhY8Q6TwkeF8tNgeCGquJl3hNGwkASzLqqQkw DqEQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1737074494; x=1737679294; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to; bh=FBSJm4krVbq3/BdnPGCwoAh/ZFQy08fz2HA8xbBR+GM=; b=iHaRqTBmOnsTtWF/QTgi0mc4EZxWXD5kJmMP1yPwee709lEoU+NqdOc7XT8hJiEU5O dx+5Ax0pPw+ozq6IpKKSZf52RoR6fQ/5qW5KbjXuxjZIGkGXf1uqS/HNxvOS6SY1CIqh +HzyucVvII/AhuLVUVi7eQ0EQh4mbqZBZarGm9KFtSFGmPYzBgZc443FPljI2nqrMtmL yAaxJUIyh3DzOn/ikWhznFxI2xGtvW/mjX9lAzFO0gXgxhSotKelHMt3AEBLzu70zisk FQ9JE9dZi84kAnCeN+CV+aRgf/o8lmJ738jIqlw0f3JFnHWQKU2BmcblUTvm346LC8dP KwYA==
X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AJvYcCWhuehohk+vmr4WMygTHXS1/ob0mPXj274qsKRjS4vk5drmMTZNGugL1um5KSGw1WFjFDg=@ietf.org
X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YzhvxSjlsvJ+PWBLpT377nicP8c7AXCkWFcJlZmtohzIBxWSG3j NT7XBNibwNLGDVIJNVxF6vMUMJimqTYQYKkeEw21nAXoTh1U7o38ng88Xxz8tLlCZBo/JSu1ntK lzAM5wCPgV88zAUVhe3Ym0gee9Lg=
X-Gm-Gg: ASbGnctzCyosJ8dske1Sy48JFyu4K6XZ2pApr7HIUFhLcZonrQ2eDoVGtpe2IIJb2YF zle3rfXD0ZpN/i6+rrF+e8PGGdU3b/+OGOp8J1SwFwT9HnlXwnPo8a0ze/LI320aKgghI1Do=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IFjHDMZW7J/YaWPjOXED1NBG0ufocLQo0+ePJMPR5vNg+KXBWP1zPohlsgylypO5brgtXJMbYisBryWtkw3M7Y=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6102:358a:b0:4af:b94a:3c3e with SMTP id ada2fe7eead31-4b690b7d1b7mr571842137.5.1737074494214; Thu, 16 Jan 2025 16:41:34 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAOgPGoDHaHXAcpXjtzoA7U-T7B0LoqxSxXsbp7-Rq+gF3shj7Q@mail.gmail.com> <CALVZKwatg8P5_p7MBOVB1DHEXW0Q3W+=_Jvzt3zJffNJMF0iHQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CALVZKwatg8P5_p7MBOVB1DHEXW0Q3W+=_Jvzt3zJffNJMF0iHQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Brendan McMillion <brendanmcmillion@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2025 16:41:23 -0800
X-Gm-Features: AbW1kvZImmr_t90zLnEpB9lE-nsau_5YDBQQJCjUHx1bB1Ry_aNUuT-YQvPC2Hw
Message-ID: <CAJTd26JbwfTLPKVCD-+NvKmOQzhTCc_Hi3JxaT=XYMoA1c1mvQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Ryan Hurst <ryan.hurst@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000002d19ff062bdc2c59"
Message-ID-Hash: WJIPNOXEBQYXTUO3YVPUHWVAS2OUCEAB
X-Message-ID-Hash: WJIPNOXEBQYXTUO3YVPUHWVAS2OUCEAB
X-MailFrom: brendanmcmillion@gmail.com
X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; emergency; loop; banned-address; member-moderation; header-match-tls.ietf.org-0; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header
CC: "<tls@ietf.org>" <tls@ietf.org>
X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.9rc6
Precedence: list
Subject: [TLS] Re: Adoption Call for Trust Anchor IDs
List-Id: "This is the mailing list for the Transport Layer Security working group of the IETF." <tls.ietf.org>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/xlHH85qzZowtlO5yQQ0jzWoxoyc>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/tls>
List-Help: <mailto:tls-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Owner: <mailto:tls-owner@ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:tls@ietf.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:tls-join@ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:tls-leave@ietf.org>

I support adoption

I still like the framing I gave in my last email: The current solution to
trust anchor agility is path building / cross-signing. So the question is
whether an incremental improvement on path building is feasible, or if
Something Else is needed. I firmly believe that path building is
unsalvageable. In addition to the interim discussions, this blog post [1]
by Ryan Sleevi was very convincing to me. The TAI draft says that path
building MAY be disabled, I would obviously make this MUST.

1.
https://medium.com/@sleevi_/path-building-vs-path-verifying-the-chain-of-pain-9fbab861d7d6

On Wed, Jan 15, 2025 at 2:11 PM Ryan Hurst <ryan.hurst@gmail.com> wrote:

> As someone with experience building and managing many CAs, running a root
> program, and building out platform technology to enable TLS use cases, I
> believe this work is important and fully support its adoption. Today’s
> manual, out-of-band management of trust anchors not only holds the web back
> but also unnecessarily exposes users to trust anchors that are not
> essential for enabling TLS on the web. This proposal provides a credible
> path to address this lack of agility. While it’s clear that this
> slow-moving and fragile approach is already problematic, it will only
> become more challenging as time goes on. As with all specifications,
> adoption remains the key challenge, but I believe this draft offers a
> practical solution to these issues without disrupting existing systems.
>
> Ryan Hurst
>
> On Wed, Jan 15, 2025 at 8:00 AM Joseph Salowey <joe@salowey.net> wrote:
>
>> At the trust tussle Interim in October we had consensus that the working
>> group was interested in working on the following problem:
>>
>> “Avoid client trust conflicts by enabling servers to reliably and
>> efficiently support clients with diverse trust anchor lists, particularly
>> in larger PKIs where the existing certificate_authorities extension is not
>> viable”
>>
>> After IETF 121, we asked for submissions for possible working group
>> adoption as a starting point for this work. We received two submissions:
>>
>> [1] Trust Anchor Identifiers, draft-beck-tls-trust-anchor-ids-03
>> <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-beck-tls-trust-anchor-ids/>
>>
>> [2] Trust is non-negotiable, draft-jackson-tls-trust-is-nonnegotiable-00
>> <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-jackson-tls-trust-is-nonnegotiable/>
>>
>> [1] defines a new protocol mechanism, while [2] provides an explanation
>> of why the mechanism in [1] may not be needed and may be problematic. Since
>> the second draft does not define a protocol mechanism we are not
>> considering it for adoption, but we request that working group members
>> review both documents and use [2] as input into determining whether we
>> should adopt [1] as a working group item.  Adoption as a working group item
>> means the working group has change control over and can modify it as
>> necessary; an adopted document is only a starting point.  Please respond to
>> this thread if you think the document should be adopted as a working group
>> item. If you think the document is not appropriate for adoption please
>> indicate why.  This adoption call will close on February 7, 2025.  Also
>> please remember to maintain professional behavior and keep the discussion
>> focused on technical issues.
>>
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>>
>> Sean, Deirdre and Joe
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> TLS mailing list -- tls@ietf.org
>> To unsubscribe send an email to tls-leave@ietf.org
>>
> _______________________________________________
> TLS mailing list -- tls@ietf.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to tls-leave@ietf.org
>