IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Acme] ACME breaking change: Most GETs become POSTs

Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com> Fri, 31 August 2018 21:19 UTC

Return-Path: <nico@cryptonector.com>
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 7415C130EC3 for <acme@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 31 Aug 2018 14:19:48 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.001
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.001 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cryptonector.com
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 6RF46pDLkLGk for <acme@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 31 Aug 2018 14:19:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pdx1-sub0-mail-a20.g.dreamhost.com (pop.dreamhost.com [64.90.62.162]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4EB26130EA5 for <acme@ietf.org>; Fri, 31 Aug 2018 14:19:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pdx1-sub0-mail-a20.g.dreamhost.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pdx1-sub0-mail-a20.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D9CA57EAE0; Fri, 31 Aug 2018 14:19:45 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=cryptonector.com; h=date :from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-type:in-reply-to; s=cryptonector.com; bh=3GDlSEtFl7kjbl NwdWHUMV0pvxA=; b=OQyP4DVU3CA+didIHnMj8KjdqrJR+NTnws/z540dxZ8Tlv +6q/UlPK5OJo44YVIHbo4F/2oEhOY7eJocF7f4k1sj8/maBfcYl5tgiNy4wwWNZK KPBPA+rZkHXogxMW88DY9hvTlv4JrCYhyZAbr5irSL6ZkhaeGxlwV3usEQI9c=
Received: from localhost (unknown [24.28.108.183]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: nico@cryptonector.com) by pdx1-sub0-mail-a20.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 477387EAE9; Fri, 31 Aug 2018 14:19:45 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2018 16:19:43 -0500
From: Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com>
To: Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>
Cc: Daniel McCarney <cpu@letsencrypt.org>, ACME WG <acme@ietf.org>, Jacob Hoffman-Andrews <jsha@eff.org>
Message-ID: <20180831211942.GF10368@localhost>
References: <c33184f3-4e64-b7ea-babb-d29e2307f1f3@eff.org> <20180831193411.GD10368@localhost> <CAKnbcLjY2NH=FdCkpWGLmPj8iXDqBk4hjF8kfGT18GyOTW4-3g@mail.gmail.com> <20180831194333.GE10368@localhost> <CABcZeBP3T_DDSMLjBhShyjZtka7bvsHRkv521gWtUUtCugrbqg@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CABcZeBP3T_DDSMLjBhShyjZtka7bvsHRkv521gWtUUtCugrbqg@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/acme/9AelJGDq7QPTZ3CZkN4y0xgZlhA>
Subject: Re: [Acme] ACME breaking change: Most GETs become POSTs
X-BeenThere: acme@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.27
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: Fri, 31 Aug 2018 21:19:57 -0000

On Fri, Aug 31, 2018 at 01:57:06PM -0700, Eric Rescorla wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 31, 2018 at 12:43 PM, Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com>
> wrote:
> 
> > On Fri, Aug 31, 2018 at 03:37:01PM -0400, Daniel McCarney wrote:
> > > > How does using POST address this?
> > >
> > > Please read the draft. We're talking about POSTs authenticated with JWS
> > not
> > > vanilla HTTP POSTs.
> >
> > That really should have been an HTTP authentication method :(
> >
> 
> Not really, no. First, HTTP is just being used as a transport here. Second,
> authentication is by digital signature, and that's not really
> well-supported in HTTP. Third, it's way too late now to be having this
> discussion.

Fair enough.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email