I would find it a bit surprising if the CABF adopted a domain validation method that relied on the web hosting provider claiming to do the right thing (to separate users on shared IP addresses so they cannot request certs from the other customers on that IP address).
Has anyone discussed this with the CABF? I’d recommend that someone send this out to the public list for feedback. Doug From: Acme [mailto:acme-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Daniel McCarney Sent: Monday, February 26, 2018 2:14 PM Cc: IETF ACME <acme@ietf.org> Subject: Re: [Acme] ALPN based TLS challenge +1 The WG should adopt this document. I will volunteer to help review if adopted. On Mon, Feb 26, 2018 at 12:02 PM, Richard Barnes <r...@ipv.sx<mailto:r...@ipv.sx>> wrote: +1 This approach is a major improvement from earlier efforts at a TLS-based challenge. It follows normal TLS processing logic much more closely, differing only in the fact that the certificate presented has an extra extension. Minimizing the differences w.r.t. normal behavior seems like a good approach to avoiding the sorts of corner cases that have tripped up earlier flavors of TLS-based challenges. Before this is finalized as an RFC, we should verify empirically that most hosting providers will be secure in the presence of this challenge. But I'm convinced that the approach in Roland's document is likely enough to work that we should go ahead and develop a specification, which we can test as it matures. --Richard On Fri, Feb 23, 2018 at 11:41 AM, Stephen Farrell <stephen.farr...@cs.tcd.ie<mailto:stephen.farr...@cs.tcd.ie>> wrote: On 23/02/18 16:31, Salz, Rich wrote: > >> Here is the ID: >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-shoemaker-acme-tls-alpn/ > > Should the WG adopt this document? Yes. Having a sufficiently secure mechanism that works on port 443 is a good thing in general. I'm not sure how many folks were using tls-sni-01 for new domains (I was) but whatever that number was, is I think evidence that a port 443 scheme fills a read need. I assume that if problems are found with the new mechanism (whether those be technical, due to odd deployments or I guess even cabforum politics;-) then we'd recognise that and stop the work. The fact that we did that to tls-sni-02 hould be re-assuring wrt this. If one accepts the two assertions above then adoption seems like a no-brainer. S. > Speak up now, we'll make a > consensus decision next week. Also if you are able to help work on > it. If adopted, I would expect this to be on the agenda for London > next month, even if it's just to briefly introduce it. > > > _______________________________________________ Acme mailing list > Acme@ietf.org<mailto:Acme@ietf.org> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/acme > -- PGP key change time for me. New-ID 7B172BEA; old-ID 805F8DA2 expires Jan 24 2018. NewWithOld sigs in keyservers. Sorry if that mucks something up;-) _______________________________________________ Acme mailing list Acme@ietf.org<mailto:Acme@ietf.org> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/acme _______________________________________________ Acme mailing list Acme@ietf.org<mailto:Acme@ietf.org> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/acme
_______________________________________________ Acme mailing list Acme@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/acme
