OK, forget Grok. And again, EST is NOT the worldwide deployed standard, ACME is. This draft use the mature ACME facility to realize other certificate automation, this is the easy way than any other standard.
Best Regards Richard Wang From: Q Misell <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2025 3:34 PM To: [email protected] Cc: Michael Richardson <[email protected]>; Mike Ounsworth <[email protected]>; IETF ACME <[email protected]> Subject: [Acme] Re: Personal review of draft-ietf-acme-client > Grok told me that "EST Server Scenario: An enterprise with an internal CA > uses an EST server to issue certificates for IoT devices", but we need ACME > for public CA to issue publicly trusted certificate. Not to constantly relitigate the value of LLMs, but what Grok has hallucinated here is not what EST can do, but rather what it has traditionally been used for. There is nothing to say it can't be used in a different context to how it is most commonly used. _____ 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 № <https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/12417574> 12417574, LEI 875500FXNCJPAPF3PD10. ICO register №: <https://ico.org.uk/ESDWebPages/Entry/ZA782876> ZA782876. UK VAT №: GB378323867. EU VAT №: EU372013983. Turkish VAT №: 0861333524. South Korean VAT №: 522-80-03080. AS207960 Ewrop OÜ, having a registered office at Lääne-Viru maakond, Tapa vald, Porkuni küla, Lossi tn 1, 46001, trading as Glauca Digital, is a company registered in Estonia under № 16755226. Estonian VAT №: EE102625532. Glauca Digital and the Glauca logo are registered trademarks in the UK, under № UK00003718474 and № UK00003718468, respectively. Ar Iau, 24 Gorff 2025 am 03:26 <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > ysgrifennodd: Hi Mike, I checked EST: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7030 that released on 2013, early than RFC8555. Let me try to explain why not EST but ACME: (1) the most important reason is ACME is widely used worldwide, EST not; (2) Grok told me that "EST Server Scenario: An enterprise with an internal CA uses an EST server to issue certificates for IoT devices", but we need ACME for public CA to issue publicly trusted certificate. (3) This draft is just add more challenge type to ACME facility that widely used, then all type certificates support automation, this is the easy way for certificate automation then EST. So I strongly recommend use ACME, not EST. And we need this draft for client certificate including code signing certificate and document signing certificate, thanks. Best Regards Richard Wang -----Original Message----- From: Michael Richardson <[email protected] <mailto:mcr%[email protected]> > Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2025 7:57 PM To: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> Cc: 'Mike Ounsworth' <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >; 'IETF ACME' <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [Acme] Re: Personal review of draft-ietf-acme-client <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > wrote: > This RFC draft is for Client Certificate including Client Authentication > Certificate, code signing certificate and document signing certificate, so > all type certificates that CA issued support ACME, this is a VERY necessary > standard that the industrial need. Can you speculate as to why EST is not being used? -- Michael Richardson <[email protected] <mailto:mcr%[email protected]> >, Sandelman Software Works -= IPv6 IoT consulting =- *I*LIKE*TRAINS* _______________________________________________ Acme mailing list -- [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
_______________________________________________ Acme mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
