Subject: [Acme] Discussion of draft-ietf-acme-ip

From: Roland Bracewell Shoemaker <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2017 14:28:25 -0800

Hey all,

First off I'd like to apologize for requesting an agenda item then not
making it to the meeting to discuss it. It seems that while I had the
right time in my calendar I managed to get the wrong day.

The point of the draft is to provide a method for validating the control
of IP addresses in the same way that the ACME draft does for DNS names.
This allows ACME implementing CAs to be on an equal footing with
existing implementations. The draft does three major things

* Adds a IP identifier type
* Provides guidance on using http-01 and tls-sni-02 challenges for IP
validation
* Adds a new challenge, reverse-dns-01, which conforms with CABF B/R
Section 3.2.2.5.

The only major objection that was previously voiced revolved around the
lack of a policy mechanism for allowing a IP/network owner to block
issuance and that there should be some kind of default denial required.
It is my opinion that this draft is the wrong place for CA policy to be
dictated and the right place to fix this problem would be in a document
implementing an lookup mechanism for CAA records for IP addresses (see
draft-shoemaker-caa-ip).

Any major thoughts/objections? If there are no significant hurdles I'd
like to move towards getting this document finalized.

Thanks,
Roland