IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Acme] Responding to challenges - spec bug?

Jörn Heissler <acme-specs@joern.heissler.de> Mon, 20 May 2019 19:29 UTC

Return-Path: <acme-specs@joern.heissler.de>
X-Original-To: acme@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: acme@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 82D58120110 for <acme@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 20 May 2019 12:29:24 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.05
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.05 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_DYNAMIC_IPADDR=1.951, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Ld2LRm0Rhcym for <acme@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 20 May 2019 12:29:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lvps87-230-93-31.dedicated.hosteurope.de (kappa.tutnicht.de [87.230.93.31]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E831012010E for <acme@ietf.org>; Mon, 20 May 2019 12:29:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.255.0.6] (helo=carrot.tutnicht.de) by lvps87-230-93-31.dedicated.hosteurope.de with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from <acme-specs@joern.heissler.de>) id 1hSnyJ-0000Ay-OE; Mon, 20 May 2019 21:29:19 +0200
Date: Mon, 20 May 2019 21:29:18 +0200
From: Jörn Heissler <acme-specs@joern.heissler.de>
To: Rob Stradling <rob@sectigo.com>
Cc: "acme@ietf.org" <acme@ietf.org>
Message-ID: <20190520192917.GL1740@carrot.tutnicht.de>
References: <a5d40c1b-d412-33b6-baf0-103a0ce7dc60@sectigo.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha512"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="xHbokkKX1kTiQeDC"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <a5d40c1b-d412-33b6-baf0-103a0ce7dc60@sectigo.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/acme/-LHQVSWD_7MDOEX6R08i0P5VDeU>
Subject: Re: [Acme] Responding to challenges - spec bug?
X-BeenThere: acme@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Automated Certificate Management Environment <acme.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/acme>, <mailto:acme-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/acme/>
List-Post: <mailto:acme@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:acme-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/acme>, <mailto:acme-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 20 May 2019 19:29:24 -0000

On Mon, May 20, 2019 at 15:56:21 +0000, Rob Stradling wrote:
> How would folks feel about an erratum to change that sentence in section 
> 7.5.1 to the following:
>    'The client indicates to the server that it is ready for the challenge
>     validation by sending a POST request to the challenge URL (not the
>     authorization URL), where the body of the POST request is a JWS
>     object whose JSON payload is a response object (see Section 8).  For
>     all challenge types defined in this document, the response object is
>     the empty JSON object ({}).'
> ?

Hello,

I agree with your finding and your suggested erratum.

--
Jörn Heissler

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email