[cabfpub] FW: [Errata Held for Document Update] RFC6844 (5065)

Mads Egil Henriksveen Mads.Henriksveen at buypass.no
Fri Aug 25 04:44:11 UTC 2017


I will endorse for Buypass.

Regards
Mads

From: Jacob Hoffman-Andrews [mailto:jsha at letsencrypt.org]
Sent: fredag 25. august 2017 00:01
To: Phillip <philliph at comodo.com>; CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion List <public at cabforum.org>
Cc: Ryan Sleevi <sleevi at google.com>; Mads Egil Henriksveen <Mads.Henriksveen at buypass.no>
Subject: Re: [cabfpub] FW: [Errata Held for Document Update] RFC6844 (5065)

This looks good, and I will endorse for Let's Encrypt. Do we have another endorser present? I'd like to get this to a ballot quickly to minimize any end-user confusion over the specifics.

One small tweak to the new text:

> As part of the issuance process, the CA MUST check for a CAA record for each dNSName in the subjectAltName extension of the certificate to be issued, according to the procedure in RFC 6844 as amended by Errata 5065 (Appendix A), following the processing instructions set down in RFC 6844 for any records found. If the CA issues, they MUST do so within the TTL of the CAA record, or 8 hours, whichever is greater.

Since this references 6844 twice, it's slightly ambiguous. I would instead just reference it once:

> As part of the issuance process, the CA MUST check for a CAA record for each dNSName in the subjectAltName extension of the certificate to be issued, according to the procedure in RFC 6844 as amended by Errata 5065 (Appendix A). If the CA issues, they MUST do so within the TTL of the CAA record, or 8 hours, whichever is greater.


On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 10:12 AM, Phillip via Public <public at cabforum.org<mailto:public at cabforum.org>> wrote:
I am just working on wording for a proposal.


Proposal: Modify the Baseline Requirements v1.4.9 as follows:

3.2.2.8. CAA Records

Change:

As part of the issuance process, the CA MUST check for a CAA record for each dNSName in the subjectAltName extension of the certificate to be issued, according to the procedure in RFC 6844, following the processing instructions set down in RFC 6844 for any records found. If the CA issues, they MUST do so within the TTL of the CAA record, or 8 hours, whichever is greater.

To:

As part of the issuance process, the CA MUST check for a CAA record for each dNSName in the subjectAltName extension of the certificate to be issued, according to the procedure in RFC 6844 as amended by Errata 5065 (Appendix A), following the processing instructions set down in RFC 6844 for any records found. If the CA issues, they MUST do so within the TTL of the CAA record, or 8 hours, whichever is greater.


Add the following

Appendix A:

The following errata report has been held for document update for RFC6844, "DNS Certification Authority Authorization (CAA) Resource Record".

--------------------------------------
You may review the report below and at:
http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid5065

--------------------------------------
Status: Held for Document Update
Type: Technical

Reported by: Phillip Hallam-Baker <philliph at comodo.com<mailto:philliph at comodo.com>> Date Reported: 2017-07-10 Held by: EKR (IESG)

Section: 4

Original Text
-------------
   Let CAA(X) be the record set returned in response to performing a CAA
   record query on the label X, P(X) be the DNS label immediately above
   X in the DNS hierarchy, and A(X) be the target of a CNAME or DNAME
   alias record specified at the label X.

   o  If CAA(X) is not empty, R(X) = CAA (X), otherwise

   o  If A(X) is not null, and R(A(X)) is not empty, then R(X) =
      R(A(X)), otherwise

   o  If X is not a top-level domain, then R(X) = R(P(X)), otherwise

   o  R(X) is empty.

Corrected Text
--------------
   Let CAA(X) be the record set returned in response to performing a CAA
   record query on the label X, P(X) be the DNS label immediately above
   X in the DNS hierarchy, and A(X) be the target of a CNAME or DNAME
   alias record chain specified at the label X.

   o  If CAA(X) is not empty, R(X) = CAA (X), otherwise

   o  If A(X) is not null, and CAA(A(X)) is not empty, then R(X) =
      CAA(A(X)), otherwise

   o  If X is not a top-level domain, then R(X) = R(P(X)), otherwise

   o  R(X) is empty.

  Thus, when a search at node X returns a CNAME record, the CA will
  follow the CNAME record chain to its target. If the target label
  contains a CAA record, it is returned.
  Otherwise, the CA continues the search at
  the parent of node X.

  Note that the search does not include the parent of a target of a
  CNAME record (except when the CNAME points back to its own path).

  To prevent resource exhaustion attacks, CAs SHOULD limit the length of
  CNAME chains that are accepted. However CAs MUST process CNAME
  chains that contain 8 or fewer CNAME records.


From: Public [mailto:public-bounces at cabforum.org<mailto:public-bounces at cabforum.org>] On Behalf Of Ryan Sleevi via Public
Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2017 10:04 AM
To: Mads Egil Henriksveen <Mads.Henriksveen at buypass.no<mailto:Mads.Henriksveen at buypass.no>>; CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion List <public at cabforum.org<mailto:public at cabforum.org>>
Subject: Re: [cabfpub] FW: [Errata Held for Document Update] RFC6844 (5065)

As currently required by the Forum, as specified in 6844.

Held for document update means just that - a future version of CAA may adjust the processing rules, consistent with the IETF process. It was not rejected - that is, there was sufficient consensus that it wasn't an outright bad idea - but it's not formally adopted.

However, this does give the Forum something somewhat-stable and reflecting broad-consensus and public participation to consider requiring in the interim, through a subsequent ballot, which would have the effect of 'relaxing' certain provisions of CAA. That is, should a member propose such a ballot, and should the Forum adopt it, this could be integrated - much as we have things such as non-critical nameConstraints to work around since-resolved vendor issues.

On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 5:31 AM, Mads Egil Henriksveen via Public <public at cabforum.org<mailto:public at cabforum.org>> wrote:
Hi

What does this mean for us who are in the process of implementing support for CAA?

Do we implement the CAA processing rules according to this errata or do we need to comply with the current version of RFC6844?

Regards
Mads

-----Original Message-----
From: Public [mailto:public-bounces at cabforum.org<mailto:public-bounces at cabforum.org>] On Behalf Of Phillip via Public
Sent: tirsdag 22. august 2017 22:15
To: 'CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion List' <public at cabforum.org<mailto:public at cabforum.org>>
Subject: [cabfpub] FW: [Errata Held for Document Update] RFC6844 (5065)

We have held for document update!


-----Original Message-----
From: RFC Errata System [mailto:rfc-editor at rfc-editor.org<mailto:rfc-editor at rfc-editor.org>]
Sent: Tuesday, August 22, 2017 12:58 PM
To: philliph at comodo.com<mailto:philliph at comodo.com>; philliph at comodo.com<mailto:philliph at comodo.com>; rob.stradling at comodo.com<mailto:rob.stradling at comodo.com>
Cc: ekr at rtfm.com<mailto:ekr at rtfm.com>; iesg at ietf.org<mailto:iesg at ietf.org>; pkix at ietf.org<mailto:pkix at ietf.org>; rfc-editor at rfc-editor.org<mailto:rfc-editor at rfc-editor.org>
Subject: [Errata Held for Document Update] RFC6844 (5065)

The following errata report has been held for document update for RFC6844, "DNS Certification Authority Authorization (CAA) Resource Record".

--------------------------------------
You may review the report below and at:
http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid5065

--------------------------------------
Status: Held for Document Update
Type: Technical

Reported by: Phillip Hallam-Baker <philliph at comodo.com<mailto:philliph at comodo.com>> Date Reported: 2017-07-10 Held by: EKR (IESG)

Section: 4

Original Text
-------------
   Let CAA(X) be the record set returned in response to performing a CAA
   record query on the label X, P(X) be the DNS label immediately above
   X in the DNS hierarchy, and A(X) be the target of a CNAME or DNAME
   alias record specified at the label X.

   o  If CAA(X) is not empty, R(X) = CAA (X), otherwise

   o  If A(X) is not null, and R(A(X)) is not empty, then R(X) =
      R(A(X)), otherwise

   o  If X is not a top-level domain, then R(X) = R(P(X)), otherwise

   o  R(X) is empty.

Corrected Text
--------------
   Let CAA(X) be the record set returned in response to performing a CAA
   record query on the label X, P(X) be the DNS label immediately above
   X in the DNS hierarchy, and A(X) be the target of a CNAME or DNAME
   alias record chain specified at the label X.

   o  If CAA(X) is not empty, R(X) = CAA (X), otherwise

   o  If A(X) is not null, and CAA(A(X)) is not empty, then R(X) =
      CAA(A(X)), otherwise

   o  If X is not a top-level domain, then R(X) = R(P(X)), otherwise

   o  R(X) is empty.

  Thus, when a search at node X returns a CNAME record, the CA will
  follow the CNAME record chain to its target. If the target label
  contains a CAA record, it is returned.
  Otherwise, the CA continues the search at

  the parent of node X.

  Note that the search does not include the parent of a target of a
  CNAME record (except when the CNAME points back to its own path).

  To prevent resource exhaustion attacks, CAs SHOULD limit the length of
  CNAME chains that are accepted. However CAs MUST process CNAME
  chains that contain 8 or fewer CNAME records.

Notes
-----
This is the updated errata to replace the ones previously deleted. It has been reviewed by all the parties concerned. Since this is a breaking change, this will have to go to hold for document update. The LAMPS working group is currently considering a more radical re-working of the CAA discovery scheme as a work item for its new charter.

I will be in Prague to discuss...

--------------------------------------
RFC6844 (draft-ietf-pkix-caa-15)
--------------------------------------
Title               : DNS Certification Authority Authorization (CAA) Resource Record
Publication Date    : January 2013
Author(s)           : P. Hallam-Baker, R. Stradling
Category            : PROPOSED STANDARD
Source              : Public-Key Infrastructure (X.509)
Area                : Security
Stream              : IETF
Verifying Party     : IESG

_______________________________________________
Public mailing list
Public at cabforum.org<mailto:Public at cabforum.org>
https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public
_______________________________________________
Public mailing list
Public at cabforum.org<mailto:Public at cabforum.org>
https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public


_______________________________________________
Public mailing list
Public at cabforum.org<mailto:Public at cabforum.org>
https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.cabforum.org/pipermail/public/attachments/20170825/79d89855/attachment-0003.html>


More information about the Public mailing list