IETF Logo Mail Archive

[Acme] restification of acme

Fraser Tweedale <frase@frase.id.au> Tue, 20 January 2015 08:04 UTC

Return-Path: <frase@frase.id.au>
X-Original-To: acme@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: acme@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DDD901B2D84 for <acme@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 20 Jan 2015 00:04:37 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 1.628
X-Spam-Level: *
X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.628 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_D=0.765, FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_DB=0.888, HELO_EQ_AU=0.377, HOST_EQ_AU=0.327, HOST_EQ_STATIC=1.172, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=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 JjPsW-CXz7pY for <acme@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 20 Jan 2015 00:04:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: from captainmorgan.hollandpark.frase.id.au (110-174-235-130.static.tpgi.com.au [110.174.235.130]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DC3B21B2D82 for <acme@ietf.org>; Tue, 20 Jan 2015 00:04:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: from bacardi.hollandpark.frase.id.au (bacardi.hollandpark.frase.id.au [192.168.0.100]) by captainmorgan.hollandpark.frase.id.au (8.14.9/8.14.9) with ESMTP id t0K84W7d046282 for <acme@ietf.org>; Tue, 20 Jan 2015 18:04:32 +1000 (EST) (envelope-from frase@frase.id.au)
Received: from bacardi.hollandpark.frase.id.au (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by bacardi.hollandpark.frase.id.au (8.14.9/8.14.9) with ESMTP id t0K84W50009186 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO) for <acme@ietf.org>; Tue, 20 Jan 2015 18:04:32 +1000 (EST) (envelope-from frase@frase.id.au)
Received: (from fraser@localhost) by bacardi.hollandpark.frase.id.au (8.14.9/8.14.9/Submit) id t0K84SJN009185 for acme@ietf.org; Tue, 20 Jan 2015 18:04:28 +1000 (EST) (envelope-from frase@frase.id.au)
X-Authentication-Warning: bacardi.hollandpark.frase.id.au: fraser set sender to frase@frase.id.au using -f
Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2015 18:04:28 +1000
From: Fraser Tweedale <frase@frase.id.au>
To: acme@ietf.org
Message-ID: <20150120080427.GB1238@bacardi.hollandpark.frase.id.au>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/acme/9vV9_Uj90Y-4oe-hjxxVwapokM4>
Subject: [Acme] restification of acme
X-BeenThere: acme@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Tue, 20 Jan 2015 08:04:38 -0000

Hi all,

After looking at the boulder server and the node-acme 'restify'
branch, and some discussion on #letsencrypt, I am led to believe
that work to make ACME a REST-flavoured protocol is underway.

If this is the case, I have some questions/comments:

- When will we see an updated version of the spec (be it in a branch
  or otherwise?)

- The Retry-After header can be used with response status 503
  Service Unavailable and MAY be used with any 3xx response.  The
  use of the Retry-After header in the restify branch seems to be in
  violation of RFC 2616.

- I'm not sure that REST is a good semantics for ACME (what does
  revocation look like, for example?).  What was the motivation for
  switching to a REST-esque API?

Regards,

Fraser

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email