Yep, this is the right way to suggest a new draft! Thanks for writing this up.
One high-level comment on a quick skim: I don't think you need the new identifier type. Since .onion is a "legit" TLD [RFC7686], onion names are part of the DNS namespace. It's OK for CAs to have different policies for different domain names. Obviously the CABF requirements would require a CA to validate .onion names differently, but that's up to the CA's internal logic to choose different challenges. Note that they already need such logic, since a client can already send in a .onion name, and the CA shouldn't validate it like a normal name. In general, it would be good to understand what extra work is really needed here. As you point out, http-01 and tls-alpn-01 work for onion names; is the new challenge type better in some way? On Tue, May 10, 2022 at 10:18 PM Seo Suchan <tjtn...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I'm new to rfc draft thing: is this right way to suggest a new draft? > > in appendix I made some questions. copyting them here: > > should this be about onion address, or all kind of alternative DNS systems? > should identifier type and challenge type include or strip -v3 tag from > its name? if we include that how about this doc name itself? http-01 and > tls-alpn-01 over tor will work as well for like onion address V2 or V12, > but csr challenge may not. but it's reasonable to ask same identifier > type should give same set of challenges. > should the as rigid as complying this will make comply CA/B Baseline > requirement? > while type onion domain name just full onion v3 name itself with example > subdomain will exceed rfc line limit. but using ... doesn't right in > context of domain name. any alternative to express truncated FQDN? would > "example.onion" work while it wouldn't be valid onion name? > > -------- forwarded message -------- > title: New Version Notification for draft-suchan-acme-onion-00.txt > date: Tue, 10 May 2022 19:04:01 -0700 > sender: internet-dra...@ietf.org > to: Seo Suchan <tjtn...@gmail.com> > > > > > A new version of I-D, draft-suchan-acme-onion-00.txt > has been successfully submitted by Seo Suchan and posted to the > IETF repository. > > Name: draft-suchan-acme-onion > Revision: 00 > Title: Automated Certificate Management Environment (ACME) Onion > Identifier Validation Extension > Document date: 2022-05-10 > Group: Individual Submission > Pages: 7 > URL: https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-suchan-acme-onion-00.txt > Status: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-suchan-acme-onion/ > Htmlized: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-suchan-acme-onion > > > Abstract: > This document specifies identifiers and challenges required to enable > the Automated Certificate Management Environment (ACME) to issue > certificates for Tor Project's onion V3 addresses. > > _______________________________________________ > Acme mailing list > Acme@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/acme >
_______________________________________________ Acme mailing list Acme@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/acme
