Subject: [Acme] I-D Action: draft-ietf-acme-ip-01.txt

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2017 12:15:03 -0700

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item of the Automated Certificate Management Environment WG of the IETF.

        Title           : ACME IP Identifier Validation Extension
        Author          : Roland Bracewell Shoemaker
	Filename        : draft-ietf-acme-ip-01.txt
	Pages           : 7
	Date            : 2017-09-18

Abstract:
   This document specifies identifiers and challenges required to enable
   the Automated Certificate Management Environment (ACME) to issue
   certificates for IP addresses.

The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-acme-ip/

There are also htmlized versions available at:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-acme-ip-01
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-acme-ip-01

A diff from the previous version is available at:
https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-acme-ip-01

Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission
until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/

---

From: Roland Shoemaker <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2017 12:30:28 -0700

Little difference from the last draft, mostly small cleanups.

There was some previous discussion about how to handle policy decisions
for issuing certificates for IP addresses. It was suggested that this
draft should contain some stronger language that would allow default
denial of certificate issuance for IP addresses. I think there should
definitely be some process for communicating these kinds of policy
decisions but I don't think this document is the right place for it, nor
do I think this document should attempt to dictate CA policy by
requiring something like this. I believe doing so would be a step back
for any CA implementing this document as they are all currently able to,
and many do, issue certificates for any IP address as long as a user is
able to prove control of it.

I believe we (or the IETF more generally) should instead focus on
developing standards for communicating a policy about issuance for IP
addresses to CAs such as a CAA lookup mechanism that can handle them
(i.e. something like
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-shoemaker-caa-ip-01, note this lacks
the tree climbing behavior which after bouncing it around a bit I've
come to the decision that it does actually require).

(I also totally forgot to incorporate the reference to 5952 for IPv6
textual representation, only saw my note about doing that after
submitting the docs, I'll make sure to resolve this in the next version!)

On 09/18/2017 12:15 PM, [email-masked] wrote:
> _______________________________________________
> Acme mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/acme
> 

-- 
Roland Bracewell Shoemaker
Software Engineer
Linux Foundation / Internet Security Research Group