Re: [Acme] Concerning alternative formats …

[Richard Barnes <[e-mail]>]

Thomson: Could h2 push replace some of the polling here?

On Mon, Mar 5, 2018 at 4:50 PM, Felipe Gasper <[e-mail]>
wrote:

>
> > On Mar 5, 2018, at 1:13 PM, Matthew D. Hardeman <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
> >
> > Especially with CT logging being a pragmatic requirement,
> time-to-delivery for certificates is likely to increase (slightly) rather
> than decrease.
>
> Quick point: the alleviation of polling would go for authz status as well
> as to certificate delivery.
>
> A certificate order that has 10 domains needs to poll for the status of
> all 10 of those domains’ authorizations as well as the certificate
> issuance. “ACME/bidi” would remove all 11 of those needs to poll.
>
> Thanks for those who have given this suggestion their consideration. I
> don’t mean to “gum up the gears” for the main ACME work, but as I’ve been
> writing ACME clients the polling stuff has stuck out to me like a sore
> thumb.
>
> It’s worth noting, too, that concerns about overhead may be alleviated if
> we do get a usable WebSocket-over-HTTP/2 implementation. Or, maybe someone
> will expose an SCTP endpoint, or a raw TCP endpoint that implements a
> simple message-boundary layer. I think the question of pure-message,
> bidirectional transport is more relevant than a specific transport
> implementation.
>
> -F