IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Acme] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8555 (5771)

Ask Bjørn Hansen <ask@develooper.com> Thu, 04 July 2019 16:25 UTC

Return-Path: <ask@develooper.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 D72C112011F for <acme@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 4 Jul 2019 09:25:09 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham 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 M2OiEq40LJPH for <acme@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 4 Jul 2019 09:25:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx-out1.ewr1.develooper.com (mx-out1.ewr1.develooper.com [139.178.64.59]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2A88412009E for <acme@ietf.org>; Thu, 4 Jul 2019 09:25:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mbox1.develooper.com (unknown [147.75.38.211]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx-out1.ewr1.develooper.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 994C96E053E for <acme@ietf.org>; Thu, 4 Jul 2019 16:25:07 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from mbox1.develooper.com (mbox1.develooper.com [127.0.0.1]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mbox1.develooper.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 83995176061 for <acme@ietf.org>; Thu, 4 Jul 2019 09:25:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 27989 invoked from network); 4 Jul 2019 16:25:06 -0000
Received: from c-98-248-50-174.hsd1.ca.comcast.net (HELO ?10.0.203.129?) (ask@mail.dev@98.248.50.174) by smtp.develooper.com with ESMTPA; 4 Jul 2019 16:25:06 -0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
From: Ask Bjørn Hansen <ask@develooper.com>
X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (16G5056d)
In-Reply-To: <20190702140400.527D3B81CB0@rfc-editor.org>
Date: Thu, 04 Jul 2019 09:24:40 -0700
Cc: rlb@ipv.sx, jsha@eff.org, cpu@letsencrypt.org, jdkasten@umich.edu, rdd@cert.org, kaduk@mit.edu, rsalz@akamai.com, ynir.ietf@gmail.com, rob@sectigo.com, acme@ietf.org
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <A1C399B6-CCAF-4346-9643-0113B7BFF814@develooper.com>
References: <20190702140400.527D3B81CB0@rfc-editor.org>
To: RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/acme/9zaiVAtRhpguqsWvyvI7LAiY0eA>
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 04 Jul 2019 09:26:47 -0700
Subject: Re: [Acme] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8555 (5771)
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: Thu, 04 Jul 2019 16:25:10 -0000

> On Jul 2, 2019, at 07:04, RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org> wrote:
> 
> If no Cache-Control header(s) were received, the client MUST
> act as if "Cache-Control: no-cache" was received.

If this is a MUST, the server should be sending it, perhaps.

> If the directory object is no longer fresh, the client MUST access the directory again
> (by sending another GET request to the directory URL) and then use the
> updated directory object.

Unless the server sent a 304 response, wouldn’t the client just have gotten the object contents in the first request?

Ask

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email