Re: [Acme] Consensus -- CAA draft to WGLC?

2017-10-19 Thread Richard Barnes
On Thu, Oct 19, 2017 at 2:21 PM, Hugo Landau wrote: > > > With regard to ACME-CAA PR#2: Is a "vendor" validation method, rather > > > than a prefix, really that useful? > > > > > > > It seems like something we're likely to need at some point, given that > > there's still

Re: [Acme] Consensus -- CAA draft to WGLC?

2017-10-19 Thread Hugo Landau
> > With regard to ACME-CAA PR#2: Is a "vendor" validation method, rather > > than a prefix, really that useful? > > > > It seems like something we're likely to need at some point, given that > there's still some diversity in validation methods. But if you're > uncomfortable, I think we can drop

Re: [Acme] Consensus -- CAA draft to WGLC?

2017-10-19 Thread Richard Barnes
Picking this up after a long gap... On Sat, Jul 8, 2017 at 4:44 AM, Hugo Landau wrote: > > > https://github.com/ietf-wg-acme/acme/pull/332 > Alright, if the ACME spec wants to genericise its validation methods > registry, I'm okay with the validation-methods change as-is. >

Re: [Acme] Consensus -- CAA draft to WGLC?

2017-07-10 Thread Phillip Hallam-Baker
On Thu, Jul 6, 2017 at 6:16 AM, Martin Thomson wrote: > On 6 July 2017 at 20:07, Hugo Landau wrote: > > Vendor-assigned identifiers could be supported as such: > > vnd:example.com/custom-method > > RFC 6648 explains why vendor-prefixes can be a

Re: [Acme] Consensus -- CAA draft to WGLC?

2017-07-08 Thread Hugo Landau
> > https://github.com/ietf-wg-acme/acme/pull/332 Alright, if the ACME spec wants to genericise its validation methods registry, I'm okay with the validation-methods change as-is. Questions: 1. Should we drop "non-acme", since any non-ACME method can have its own identifier listed? I think

Re: [Acme] Consensus -- CAA draft to WGLC?

2017-07-07 Thread Salz, Rich
> https://github.com/ietf-wg-acme/acme/pull/332 I like this. I proposed one minor wording clarification. ___ Acme mailing list Acme@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/acme

Re: [Acme] Consensus -- CAA draft to WGLC?

2017-07-07 Thread Richard Barnes
On Fri, Jul 7, 2017 at 9:33 AM, Hugo Landau wrote: > >On Thu, Jul 6, 2017 at 11:57 AM, Salz, Rich <[1]rs...@akamai.com> > wrote: > > > > So let's see. Can we live with this? > > > > Create a spec-required registry for validation method names. > > > >I

Re: [Acme] Consensus -- CAA draft to WGLC?

2017-07-07 Thread Hugo Landau
>On Thu, Jul 6, 2017 at 11:57 AM, Salz, Rich <[1]rs...@akamai.com> wrote: > > So let's see.  Can we live with this? > > Create a spec-required registry for validation method names. > >I share Hugo's concern about divergence here.  Should we maybe just put >these in the

Re: [Acme] Consensus -- CAA draft to WGLC?

2017-07-07 Thread Richard Barnes
On Thu, Jul 6, 2017 at 11:57 AM, Salz, Rich wrote: > So let's see. Can we live with this? > > Create a spec-required registry for validation method names. > I share Hugo's concern about divergence here. Should we maybe just put these in the ACME challenge types registry? It

Re: [Acme] Consensus -- CAA draft to WGLC?

2017-07-06 Thread Salz, Rich
So let's see. Can we live with this? Create a spec-required registry for validation method names. Do not reference CABF docs. Change the CA sample names from A B to X Y or foo bar or this that or whatever. ___ Acme mailing list Acme@ietf.org

Re: [Acme] Consensus -- CAA draft to WGLC?

2017-07-06 Thread Martin Thomson
On 6 July 2017 at 20:07, Hugo Landau wrote: > Vendor-assigned identifiers could be supported as such: > vnd:example.com/custom-method RFC 6648 explains why vendor-prefixes can be a bad idea. I think that you should do as Yaron suggested and establish a registry. Set the

Re: [Acme] Consensus -- CAA draft to WGLC?

2017-07-05 Thread Yaron Sheffer
The problem with saying "Tokens registered as ACME challenge types MUST NOT be used to identify non-ACME validation methods" is that ACME might want to come up with additional method names in the future, and those just might happen to conflict with methods that have been used by other

Re: [Acme] Consensus -- CAA draft to WGLC?

2017-07-05 Thread Richard Barnes
Just for context here: I think the original operating model for CAA was that the CA would tell the customer what values to put in there in order to authorize issuance. So it was safe to use arbitrary values because it was basically a closed loop CA -> Customer -> CAA -> CA. Nonetheless, I

Re: [Acme] Consensus -- CAA draft to WGLC?

2017-07-05 Thread Yaron Sheffer
I support moving forward with the document. However I think the treatment of the acme-methods (or validation-methods) param is inconsistent, before and certainly after Richard's PR. The original draft only allows ACME methods and the special name "non-acme". This leaves the responsibility to

Re: [Acme] Consensus -- CAA draft to WGLC?

2017-07-05 Thread Richard Barnes
https://github.com/ietf-wg-acme/acme-caa/pull/2 On Wed, Jul 5, 2017 at 11:47 AM, Salz, Rich wrote: > > There's no listing going on here, since there's no registry for the > values. CABF could put tokens in their documents if they like. > > Okay, please propose wording (or did

Re: [Acme] Consensus -- CAA draft to WGLC?

2017-07-05 Thread Salz, Rich
> There's no listing going on here, since there's no registry for the values.  > CABF could put tokens in their documents if they like. Okay, please propose wording (or did you? Sorry if so) to change for the CAA draft. ___ Acme mailing list

Re: [Acme] Consensus -- CAA draft to WGLC?

2017-07-05 Thread Richard Barnes
There's no listing going on here, since there's no registry for the values. CABF could put tokens in their documents if they like. On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 1:33 PM, Salz, Rich wrote: > > The two last ones are editorial, but the first about enumerating all BR > > methods isn't

Re: [Acme] Consensus -- CAA draft to WGLC?

2017-06-30 Thread Russ Housley
I do not see how the comments from Richard Barnes were handled. Russ > On Jun 30, 2017, at 10:30 AM, Salz, Rich wrote: > > Based on feedback here, Hugo just posted an updated draft, > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-acme-caa-02 > > I would like to advance this to

Re: [Acme] Consensus -- CAA draft to WGLC?

2017-06-30 Thread Salz, Rich
Based on feedback here, Hugo just posted an updated draft, https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-acme-caa-02 I would like to advance this to the IESG in a week. Please speak up if you disagree. Also, still looking for a document shepherd (see

Re: [Acme] Consensus -- CAA draft to WGLC?

2017-06-13 Thread Ilari Liusvaara
On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 05:33:48PM +, Salz, Rich wrote: > > The two last ones are editorial, but the first about enumerating all BR > > methods isn't (since it needs new validation method identifiers). > > Thinking about it a bit more, I don't think it is appropriate for > ACME to list CABF

Re: [Acme] Consensus -- CAA draft to WGLC?

2017-06-13 Thread Salz, Rich
> The two last ones are editorial, but the first about enumerating all BR > methods isn't (since it needs new validation method identifiers). Thinking about it a bit more, I don't think it is appropriate for ACME to list CABF things. That's a strong view as an individual, and a moderate view as

Re: [Acme] Consensus -- CAA draft to WGLC?

2017-06-13 Thread Salz, Rich
> Couple of minor comments: These seem like all strictly editorial to me. Anyone disagree? -- Senior Architect, Akamai Technologies Member, OpenSSL Dev Team IM: richs...@jabber.at Twitter: RichSalz ___ Acme mailing list Acme@ietf.org

[Acme] Consensus -- CAA draft to WGLC?

2017-06-08 Thread Salz, Rich
>>Hugo's CAA draft (already adopted, short, might be >> ready for WGLC) -- https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-acme-caa-01 This has moved to WGLC. If you know of any reason why it should not advance to the IESG, please post by end of next week. If you are willing to be the