| There’s no way to add this to SCEP formally and EST relies on LaMPS, which is already backlogged.
I’m not sure why this has to go through adoption calls every single time it’s presented despite support. I don’t see that in other working groups or with other drafts.
-Kathleen Sent from my mobile device I don't quite follow your argument. ACME is not widely deployed for what you want to achieve either.
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, LEI 875500FXNCJPAPF3PD10.
ICO register №: 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.
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 > 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 № 12417574, LEI 875500FXNCJPAPF3PD10. ICO register №: 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. 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]>
Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2025 7:57 PM
To: [email protected]
Cc: 'Mike Ounsworth' <Mike.Ounsworth=[email protected]>; 'IETF
ACME' <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [Acme] Re: Personal review of draft-ietf-acme-client
<[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]>, Sandelman Software Works
-= IPv6 IoT consulting =- *I*LIKE*TRAINS*
_______________________________________________
Acme mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
|
