> -----Original Message-----
> From: Felipe Gasper <[email protected]>
> Sent: 21 January 2020 14:15
> To: Ryan Sleevi <[email protected]>
> Cc: Owen Friel (ofriel) <[email protected]>; IETF ACME <[email protected]>
> Subject: Re: [Acme] ACME wildcards vs. subdomain authorizations (was RE: Call
> for adoption draft-frield-acme-subdomains)
> 
> 
> > On Jan 21, 2020, at 8:04 AM, Ryan Sleevi <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Jan 21, 2020 at 7:14 AM Owen Friel (ofriel) <[email protected]> 
> > wrote:
> > > Also, the linked document states:
> > >
> > >    The call flow illustrates the DNS-based proof of ownership mechanism,
> > >    but the subdomain workflow is equally valid for HTTP based proof of
> > >    ownership.
> > >
> > > Can’t I have HTTP access to a base domain’s website without having
> > > access to a subdomain’s, though? I thought that was the reason why
> > > ACME limits wildcard authz to DNS.
> >
> > [ofriel] Daniel has clarified this already. Its a Lets Encrypt, not an ACME
> limitation.
> >
> > Although the CA/Browser Forum / Browser Stores have repeatedly
> > discussed forbidding it. That is, allowing the HTTP and TLS methods of
> > validation to only be scoped for the host in question (and potentially
> > the service in question, if we can work out the safe SRVName
> > transition, due to the interaction of nameConstraints and policy)
> >
> > Would it be simpler to remove the statement from the draft, rather than try 
> > to
> clarify equally valid refers to the technology without commenting on the 
> policy?
> 
> For what my opinion is worth, that seems reasonable--though perhaps the best
> might be to defer explicitly to the CA/B guidelines, e.g., “whatever 
> validation
> methods CA/B allows for subdomains/wildcards, this also allows.”

[ofriel] this suggestion makes sense. I will clarify what RFC8555 allows, and 
then refer to CA/B guidelines too. This could be for a private CA, or an IoT 
root CA (as per the long thread on lamps), so CA/B may not even be applicable 
depending on the use case.

> 
> -F
_______________________________________________
Acme mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/acme

Reply via email to