Re: [Acme] Server on >= 1024 port

Romain Fliedel <romain.fliedel@gmail.com> Wed, 02 December 2015 18:10 UTC

MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAMm+Lwh049LvtE_JZ254VqLOiZJEhPcivaaYScrz-u81pzdoww@mail.gmail.com>
References: <565589E4.2030107@desy.de> <565EBF56.3070502@desy.de> <D836A378-DA88-4AAF-B1E4-F34A80319DC1@gmail.com> <e9092589f3204a449af8b6f900be1303@usma1ex-dag1mb1.msg.corp.akamai.com> <CAL02cgQPZrx5d1xO-xKEQrV+pZKLkhYW_XDSm=QM8THs__s5qQ@mail.gmail.com> <CANUQDChMFShsjVxOP4XfiMuP3PkKTitr5MM3y3AaNjgyPeaFgA@mail.gmail.com> <23dcf9f85a6a400ca76196e096d22da6@usma1ex-dag1mb1.msg.corp.akamai.com> <CAMm+LwjZc149hfJ3OE-Vi4BgZUdaKqJ1-drKDppMAmqv-JBwxQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAO5z66Daaf2De57AAdZE_Cp_Z-SWVba8PryFnhSn7kDrCKcs3w@mail.gmail.com> <CAMm+Lwh049LvtE_JZ254VqLOiZJEhPcivaaYScrz-u81pzdoww@mail.gmail.com>
From: Romain Fliedel <romain.fliedel@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 02 Dec 2015 19:09:57 +0100
Message-ID: <CAO5z66CKVX6y-ejnH3etbMzLwfHdAEgQyc+_d3OOjp4OgXOMWQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Phillip Hallam-Baker <phill@hallambaker.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="047d7bb049c0c7ab9b0525ee2f4e"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/acme/OyKlGzYtyz2vMG4L5DjbPsjtsrk>
Cc: Niklas Keller <me@kelunik.com>, Richard Barnes <rlb@ipv.sx>, "Salz, Rich" <rsalz@akamai.com>, "acme@ietf.org" <acme@ietf.org>, Yoav Nir <ynir.ietf@gmail.com>, Paul Millar <paul.millar@desy.de>
Subject: Re: [Acme] Server on >= 1024 port
Precedence: list

2015-12-02 18:57 GMT+01:00 Phillip Hallam-Baker <phill@hallambaker.com>:

>
>
> On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 12:52 PM, Romain Fliedel <romain.fliedel@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> So we might have a record of the form:
>>>
>>> example.com  CAA  0 acmedv1 "port=666"
>>>
>>>
>> If you have to modify the dns to use a custom port, why not use the dns
>> validation method ? (once it's available)
>>
>
> Well there is a slight difference. DNS validation is possibly encumbered
> for a start.
>
> If by DNS validation you mean 'put the response to the challenge in the
> DNS' then that requires a lot more administrative connection to the DNS
> than 'put the fingerprint of the validation key in the DNS'
>

There was a discussion about dns validation that was suggesting using the
account public key hash as the DNS record value.
Thus it would be a relatively easy to provision the value correct value.

[Acme] Server on >= 1024 port Paul Millar
Re: [Acme] Server on >= 1024 port moparisthebest
Re: [Acme] Server on >= 1024 port Eric Rescorla
Re: [Acme] Server on >= 1024 port moparisthebest
Re: [Acme] Server on >= 1024 port Roland Zink
Re: [Acme] Server on >= 1024 port Martin Thomson
Re: [Acme] Server on >= 1024 port Paul Millar
Re: [Acme] Server on >= 1024 port Randy Bush
Re: [Acme] Server on >= 1024 port Yoav Nir
Re: [Acme] Server on >= 1024 port Yoav Nir
Re: [Acme] Server on >= 1024 port Rob Stradling
Re: [Acme] Server on >= 1024 port Stephen Farrell
Re: [Acme] Server on >= 1024 port Rob Stradling
Re: [Acme] Server on >= 1024 port Paul Millar
Re: [Acme] Server on >= 1024 port Phillip Hallam-Baker
Re: [Acme] Server on >= 1024 port Yoav Nir
Re: [Acme] Server on >= 1024 port Salz, Rich
Re: [Acme] Server on >= 1024 port Richard Barnes
Re: [Acme] Server on >= 1024 port Niklas Keller
Re: [Acme] Server on >= 1024 port Ted Hardie
Re: [Acme] Server on >= 1024 port Salz, Rich
Re: [Acme] Server on >= 1024 port Phillip Hallam-Baker
Re: [Acme] Server on >= 1024 port Phillip Hallam-Baker
Re: [Acme] Server on >= 1024 port Romain Fliedel
Re: [Acme] Server on >= 1024 port Ted Hardie
Re: [Acme] Server on >= 1024 port Phillip Hallam-Baker
Re: [Acme] Server on >= 1024 port Romain Fliedel
Re: [Acme] Server on >= 1024 port Phillip Hallam-Baker
Re: [Acme] Server on >= 1024 port Peter Eckersley
Re: [Acme] Server on >= 1024 port Peter Eckersley
Re: [Acme] Server on >= 1024 port Peter Eckersley
Re: [Acme] Server on >= 1024 port James Cloos
Re: [Acme] Server on >= 1024 port Richard Barnes
Re: [Acme] Server on >= 1024 port Phillip Hallam-Baker
Re: [Acme] Server on >= 1024 port Peter Eckersley
Re: [Acme] Server on >= 1024 port James Cloos
Re: [Acme] Server on >= 1024 port Eric Rescorla
Re: [Acme] Server on >= 1024 port Niklas Keller
Re: [Acme] Server on >= 1024 port Randy Bush
Re: [Acme] Server on >= 1024 port Eric Mill
Re: [Acme] Server on >= 1024 port Darren J Moffat
Re: [Acme] Server on >= 1024 port Rob Stradling
Re: [Acme] Server on >= 1024 port Ángel González
Re: [Acme] Server on >= 1024 port Vincent Lynch