> > I thought that was the reason why ACME limits wildcard authz to DNS.
I don't think RFC 8555 imposes any restrictions on what challenge types can be used for wildcard identifiers. Limiting wildcard DNS identifiers to the DNS-01 challenge is a policy decision by Let's Encrypt. On Mon, Jan 20, 2020 at 7:32 AM Felipe Gasper <[email protected]> wrote: > Will this document eventually also describe subdomain authz via the > standard ACME workflow? > > Examples: > > 1) Client wants a certificate for example.com & www.example.com. Ideally, > if the client authzs example.com, then authz for www.example.com > shouldn’t be necessary. > > 2) Now client also wants a separate certificate for sub.example.com and > www.sub.example.com. Since example.com was already authorized, this > certificate order should not require any additional authz. > > It seems like the above workflow should “just work”, but since it’s > closely related to what your document describes I wonder if there’s benefit > to mentioning it? > > Also, the linked document states: > > The call flow illustrates the DNS-based proof of ownership mechanism, > but the subdomain workflow is equally valid for HTTP based proof of > ownership. > > Can’t I have HTTP access to a base domain’s website without having access > to a subdomain’s, though? I thought that was the reason why ACME limits > wildcard authz to DNS. > > > cheers, > -Felipe Gasper > > > > On Jan 20, 2020, at 6:48 AM, Owen Friel (ofriel) <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > FYI, https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-friel-acme-subdomains-01 > documents the proposed new authorization object field "basedomain" > > > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Acme <[email protected]> On Behalf Of Owen Friel (ofriel) > >> Sent: 06 December 2019 15:41 > >> To: Salz, Rich <[email protected]>; [email protected] > >> Subject: [Acme] ACME wildcards vs. subdomain authorizations (was RE: > Call for > >> adoption draft-frield-acme-subdomains) > >> > >> Any comments on this email on how to explicitly distinguish between > wildcard > >> and subdomain authorizations, which hopefully addresses ekr's mic > comments. > >> > >> > >>> -----Original Message----- > >>> From: Acme <[email protected]> On Behalf Of Owen Friel (ofriel) > >>> Sent: 26 November 2019 22:51 > >>> To: Salz, Rich <[email protected]>; [email protected] > >>> Subject: Re: [Acme] Call for adoption draft-frield-acme-subdomains > >>> > >>> DNS wildcards are mentioned in 3 sections in RFC8555 (in addition to > >>> the IANA Considerations section): > >>> > >>> 1. https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8555#section-7.1.3 Order Objects: > >>> > >>> Any identifier of type "dns" in a newOrder request MAY have a > >>> wildcard domain name as its value. A wildcard domain name consists > >>> of a single asterisk character followed by a single full stop > >>> character ("*.") followed by a domain name as defined for use in the > >>> Subject Alternate Name Extension by [RFC5280]. An authorization > >>> returned by the server for a wildcard domain name identifier MUST NOT > >>> include the asterisk and full stop ("*.") prefix in the authorization > >>> identifier value. The returned authorization MUST include the > >>> optional "wildcard" field, with a value of true. > >>> > >>> 2. https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8555#section-7.1.4 Authorization > Objects: > >>> > >>> If an > >>> authorization object conveys authorization for the base domain of a > >>> newOrder DNS identifier containing a wildcard domain name, then the > >>> optional authorizations "wildcard" field MUST be present with a value > >>> of true. > >>> > >>> 3. https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8555#section-7.4.1 Pre-authorization > >>> > >>> Note that because the identifier in a pre-authorization request is > >>> the exact identifier to be included in the authorization object, pre- > >>> authorization cannot be used to authorize issuance of certificates > >>> containing wildcard domain names. > >>> > >>> For the subdomains use case, it looks as if it makes sense to define a > >>> "parentdomain" boolean flag (or "basedomainname" or similar) to be > >>> included in the authorization object for a domain that authorizes > >>> subdomain certs. The relevant CAB guidelines are quoted in > >>> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-friel- > >>> acme-subdomains-00#appendix-A. > >>> > >>> The authorization object would then explicitly indicate that this is a > >>> base domain authorization and thus subdomain certs may be issued off > >>> this. This is conceptually similar to the current "wildcard" flag > >>> which indicates that a wildcard cert may be issued off the identifier > >>> in the object, and would definitively differentiate wildcard vs. base > >>> domain vs. explicit domain authorizations. > >>> > >>> Item #3 from section 7.4.1 Pre-authorization is already called out as > >>> a substantive change from RFC8555: i.e. the identifier in the > >>> authorization object may be different from the identifier in the > newAuthz > >> object. > >>> > >>>> -----Original Message----- > >>>> From: Acme <[email protected]> On Behalf Of Salz, Rich > >>>> Sent: 26 November 2019 21:53 > >>>> To: [email protected] > >>>> Subject: Re: [Acme] Call for adoption draft-frield-acme-subdomains > >>>> > >>>> WRONG. My mistake. > >>>> > >>>> Please discuss this, especially the subdomains/wildcard issues. > >>>> This is *NOT* a call for adoption. We will take this up in > Vancouver, IETF > >> 107. > >>>> > >>>> From: Rich Salz <mailto:[email protected]> > >>>> Date: Tuesday, November 26, 2019 at 4:51 PM > >>>> To: "mailto:[email protected]"; <mailto:[email protected]> > >>>> Subject: [Acme] Call for adoption draft-frield-acme-subdomains > >>>> > >>>> This email starts a ten-day call for adoption. There was consensus > >>>> in the room at IETF 106 to adopt this as a working group document. > >>>> If you disagree with that, or have any other strong feelings, please > >>>> post to the list before the end of next week. > >>>> Also discussed was the need for some additional clarity around > >>>> subdomains and the existing wildcard challenges. > >>>> > >>>> Thank you. > >>>> > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> Acme mailing list > >>> [email protected] > >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/acme > >> _______________________________________________ > >> Acme mailing list > >> [email protected] > >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/acme > > _______________________________________________ > > Acme mailing list > > [email protected] > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/acme > > _______________________________________________ > Acme mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/acme >
_______________________________________________ Acme mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/acme
