Re: [Acme] Optional "Wildcard" authorization field

One (fairly) obvious use of the “wildcard” flag is for status reporting without the context of the original newOrder. The client can thus more easily say:

Authorization for “*.example.com”: $message

… without having to correlate the authz object with the order.

-FG

> On Mar 2, 2018, at 12:32 PM, Daniel McCarney <cpu@letsencrypt.org> wrote:
> 
> Richard: That's up to the client and the situation. In the linked Certbot issues there were questions about error output/UX. In this case if the client saw an error attached to an authorization with the identifier `{ "type": "dns", "value": "example.com"}` and the authorization had `wildcard: true` the client could say "Failed to authorize *.example.com: blah blah blah" or otherwise use the knowledge to inform their actions (whatever they may be).
> 
> In general I think there will be reason for client developers will want to have a standardized way of understanding if an authorization corresponds to a wildcard identifier or not. I'm hopeful some client developers will chime in with more concrete examples, I'm a server-side grunt.
> 
> - Daniel / cpu
> 
> On Fri, Mar 2, 2018 at 12:29 PM, Richard Barnes <rlb@ipv.sx> wrote:
> Daniel: I don't have a strong objection here, but could you elaborate what the client is expected to do differently based on this flag?
> 
> On Fri, Mar 2, 2018 at 12:22 PM, Daniel McCarney <cpu@letsencrypt.org> wrote:
> Hi folks,
> 
> There is a slight disconnect with the current specification between identifiers in newOrder/newAuthz requests and identifiers in authorization objects. The former is allowed to include wildcard domains in the value of DNS type identifiers while the latter is forbidden. 
> 
> Let's Encrypt's implementation of ACME wildcard issuance guessed this might lead to confusion and introduced a non-standardized "Wildcard" boolean field in authorization objects. If true, then the identifier value in the authorization identifier is known to be the base domain corresponding to a wildcard identifier from the newOrder/newAuthz request.
> 
> I think it would be beneficial to the entire ecosystem if this optional "wildcard" authz field could be standardized so I've sent a small PR: https://github.com/ietf-wg-acme/acme/pull/402 Both Certbot and ACME4J have independently bumped into this disconnect, which helps justify the need.
> 
> - Daniel / cpu
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Acme mailing list
> Acme@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/acme
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Acme mailing list
> Acme@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/acme