[eqvinox]

> The browser vendors have learned that you have to do it yourself

Cool. We already got the internet ossified on TCP + UDP, other L4 protocols just get stuck in firewalls and whatnot. Now we're progressing in ossification of HTTP. <insert expletives here>

To be clear: this OCSP decision seems to be driven directly and only by web/HTTP consumers. Anything else is just not considered.

[tialaramex]

It is called the Web PKI after all. If somebody else actually wants to do all the hard work they're welcome, but my impression is that there's only enthusiasm for bitching and whining which won't get the work done.

[eqvinox]

> It is called the Web PKI after all.

Let's Encrypt issues X.509 certificates, not "Web PKI certificates".

[mcpherrinm]

x.509 is a certificate format used by many PKIs.

Let's Encrypt is a CA that is part of the WebPKI.

We follow standards set by the CA/B forum, undergo WebTrust Audits, and are accepted into the root programs run by the browser vendors (Primarily: Apple, Mozilla, Microsoft, and Chrome). That is the WebPKI.

[eqvinox]

Are you implying Let's Encrypt certificates should not be used for non-HTTP services?

[mcpherrinm]

I am not implying that, but merely defining what the WebPKI is and where we fit into it.

Let's Encrypt's primary goal is to encrypt the web, and most of our decision making is based on that. It isn't so much about HTTP as it is the ecosystem.

You can use our certificates for any TLS Server use-case. I wouldn't suggest using our certificates for things which aren't TLS servers, though.

[eqvinox]

Thanks for the clarification. I guess I'll have to find a few friends to run an ACME service together with. Unfortunately, in most cases the certificate store is global across applications, so presumably we'll hit a brick wall with browser requirements.

(The services are all TLS based. They are just not HTTP based, and CRLs are generally delivered via HTTP. And I'm not going to wrangle a HTTP client into my mail server, or worse, postgres instance. The latter could also work with a local CA, it's primarily SMTP that doesn't.)

(...or I just ignore revocation and cross my fingers it'll never come up...)

[eqvinox]

Wait. What. Let's Encrypt CRLs are only available to browser vendors? So you can't even do a CRL check in an SMTP server if you wanted to?

> Our new CRL URLs will be disclosed only in CCADB, so that the Apple and Mozilla root programs can consume them without exposing them to potentially large download traffic from the rest of the internet at large.

https://letsencrypt.org/2022/09/07/new-life-for-crls.html

[nickf]

What non-HTTP services need publicly-trusted certificates and care about revocation?

[formerly_proven]

mail