[cabf_validation] Fwd: Draft Ballot to Remove IP "Any Other Method" Validation (SC7)

Wayne Thayer wthayer at mozilla.com
Tue Jan 8 16:58:59 MST 2019

Forwarding this message since Jacob isn't a member of the list, so it was
discarded by the system.

---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Jacob Hoffman-Andrews <jsha at eff.org>
Date: Tue, Jan 8, 2019 at 4:52 PM
Subject: Re: [cabf_validation] Draft Ballot to Remove IP "Any Other Method"
Validation (SC7)
To: Wayne Thayer <wthayer at mozilla.com>, CA/Browser Forum Validation WG List
<validation at cabforum.org>

Thanks for drafting this! I'm very supportive of specifying the IP
validation methods more rigorously.

I've made a couple of comments on the draft:

- The ACME WG has removed the "reverse address lookup" method from the
IP address validation draft because it was not considered a reliable
source of information. We shouldn't include it here.

- The "Agreed-Upon Change to Website" section covers the "http-01"
method in the acme-ip draft
(https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-acme-ip-04#section-4), but I
think it is better to assign separate numbers to ACME methods because
they are much narrower and better-defined. For instance, if a future
requirement or best practice emerges of declaring the validation methods
used within a certificate extension, this allows CAs to be much more

- Along similar lines, we should probably include the other method from
the acme-ip draft, "tls-alpn-01." This avoids a deadlock where the
method isn't legal, so there can't be publicly-trusted implementations,
which makes IETF standardization harder.

The acme-ip draft is not yet an RFC, but is fairly far along. I don't
expect revisions to the details of the validation methods, and we can
reference a specific draft version for precision.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://cabforum.org/pipermail/validation/attachments/20190108/1467c072/attachment.html>

More information about the Validation mailing list