I'm also in favour of calling it DNS-02. I highly doubt there will be many (if any) versions of challenges beyond version 1. It makes more sense to me to read DNS-02 and DNS challenge type 2, not a upgraded edition of version 1. ------------------------------
Any statements contained in this email are personal to the author and are not necessarily the statements of the company unless specifically stated. AS207960 Cyfyngedig, having a registered office at 13 Pen-y-lan Terrace, Caerdydd, Cymru, CF23 9EU, trading as Glauca Digital, is a company registered in Wales under № 12417574 <https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/12417574>. ICO register №: ZA782876 <https://ico.org.uk/ESDWebPages/Entry/ZA782876>. UK VAT №: GB378323867. EU VAT №: EU372013983. Turkish VAT №: 0861333524. South Korean VAT №: 522-80-03080. Glauca Digital and the Glauca logo are registered trademarks in the UK, under № UK00003718474 and № UK00003718468, respectively. On Fri, 12 May 2023 at 17:58, Aaron Gable <aaron= 40letsencrypt....@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote: > For what it's worth, I'm in favor of calling it DNS-02. Despite your > totally correct descriptions of the disadvantages of this new method, I > *do* still view it as a generally-improved version of DNS-01. It's > obviously backwards-incompatible, hence the new major version number, but > it is generally an improvement that creates more flexibility for clients at > little cost. I also find the name "DNS-ACCOUNT-01" to be slightly > unfortunate, as no "dns accounts" are involved -- it makes sense once you > understand the method, but the name gives little to no hint to how the > method works on its own. > > Aaron > > On Thu, May 11, 2023 at 4:52 PM Antonios Chariton <daknob....@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> Hello everyone, >> >> I’m sending this e-mail to the list to update you all on DNS-ACCOUNT-01 >> and the news we have since the presentation in IETF 116. >> >> You can all help by reviewing the text[0], these updates, and sharing >> your opinion in this thread here! >> >> The CA/B Forum 2023-05-04 meeting discussed DNS-ACCOUNT-01 and three >> things came out of it, as it is evident in the minutes[1]: >> >> 1) This method is compatible with the CA/B Forum Baseline Requirements >> that are binding for all WebPKI CAs, specifically section 3.2.2.4.7 for >> agreed-upon change to a DNS record. This means that CAs can start using >> this standard immediately, and there are no other dependencies. The design >> seemed to be good in its current version. Obviously, quick changes to their >> CP/CPS may be required, but this is not blocking and unilateral. >> >> 2) There is a documented need for various usecases where this challenge >> would help, from several stakeholders, and evidence that it could be >> beneficial to the ecosystem and its development. It allows ACME to be used >> in even more situations where more traditional and non-automatable methods >> had to be relied upon. >> >> 3) There was a suggestion to rename this challenge to DNS-02. This is >> something that we had rejected back when we created this challenge, however >> it has been suggested several times, so we are happy to reconsider this. It >> may be the right choice. >> >> There’s no published precedence of what -02 means right now, so it’s >> unclear whether it is a second option, or a next generation / improved >> challenge. We never planned to replace DNS-01 with our challenge, we always >> intended to add more options, and cover more use cases. Here are some >> technical “disadvantages” of this work vs DNS-01: >> >> 1) ACME Clients need to calculate the correct label. Although we provide >> the algorithm, a bash script, and test vectors, anecdotal data from ISRG >> suggest that some clients still mess things up (implementing RFC 8555), so >> this is another value where this may happen. An easy solution here would be >> to share the expected label with the client, but we decided against this to >> protect against cross-protocol attacks, and also to protect the client >> against an ACME server giving it arbitrary DNS records to change. If >> clients calculate this independently, they don’t need to trust the server. >> >> 2) The label is longer, so some very very long domain names may no longer >> work. Since this is 17 characters longer than DNS-01’s label, anything >> approaching the various limits (of DNS, etc.) may break. For example, if in >> DNS-01 you end up with a 236-253 character domain name to check for the TXT >> record, then DNS-ACCOUNT-01 will go over the limit and won’t work. We don’t >> consider this to be a major problem. We’re also not aware of many domain >> names in the 236-253 character range. >> >> 3) If an ACME client for whatever reason loses access to the ACME >> account, this “set and forget” DNS label now has to change. Things would >> break here with other standards too (if you need an EAB token, you can’t >> create a new account anyways, if you limit the ACME account via CAA >> records, you can’t issue, etc.) but DNS-ACCOUNT-01 would just add to the >> things that would have to be taken into account. We don’t currently >> consider this a huge issue, but if you think it could be, let us know. >> >> As you can see, these 3 tradeoffs above had to be made, to ensure we can >> cover more use cases. We think these are good tradeoffs for an additional >> ACME challenge, but perhaps they are not for an “upgraded” one. >> >> What do you think about the naming? Do you perceive “DNS-02” as an >> improved version, or as a second option? We are happy to rename this to >> DNS-02 and we have no plans of breaking any ACME server or client already >> using DNS-01 :) >> >> Thanks for reading through this, and I am happy to hear your thoughts and >> get reviews on the draft, so we can move further with this work. >> >> Antonios Chariton >> Independent Contributor ;) >> >> - - - >> Links: >> >> [0] : >> https://archive.cabforum.org/pipermail/validation/2023-May/001892.html >> [1] : https://daknob.github.io/draft-todo-chariton-dns-account-01/ >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 >
_______________________________________________ Acme mailing list Acme@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/acme
