Re: [Acme] Clarification about Identifier Validation Challenges

On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 2:27 AM, Romain Fliedel <romain.fliedel@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Any feedback ?
>
>
Why would you want the token to be in cleartext?

Ted

> 2015-07-27 12:40 GMT+02:00 Romain Fliedel <romain.fliedel@gmail.com>:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I've been reading the spec, and I don't really understand why the reply
>> to validation challenges is not designed the same way as other api. If I
>> understand the spec correctly, instead of sending a JWS reply, the jws is
>> embedded in a json object containing 'type' and 'validation'.
>>
>> For example the dvsni challenge response is :
>> {
>>   "type": "dvsni',
>>   "validation": {
>>     "header": { "alg": "HS256" },
>>     "payload": "qzu9...6bjn",
>>     "signature": "xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx"
>>   }
>> }
>>
>> Why don't use a regular JWS as body for this challenge reply ?
>> In that case the reply would be:
>> {
>>     "signature": "xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx",
>>     "protected": "eyJub25jZ...In0",
>>     "header": {
>>         "alg": "RS256",
>>         "jwk": {
>>             "kty": "RSA",
>>             "n": "ox33_lEk....Eg9zM",
>>             "e": "AQAB"
>>         }
>>     },
>>     "payload": /* in cleartext for readability */ {
>>        "type": "dvsni",
>>        "token": "fgf...gfdg"
>>     }
>> }
>>
>> Also for the dns challenge I don't understand why there is
>> "clientPublicKey" attribute in the reply.
>> Still regarding dns challenge I am concerned about the length of the
>> "signature" generated when RS256 is used to sign the JWS object with a 4096
>> bits key. It will then exceed the maximum txt record length. maybe using a
>> hash of this signature would solve this ?
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Acme mailing list
> Acme@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/acme
>
>