[Acme] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8555 (6030)

RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org> Wed, 25 March 2020 22:26 UTC

Return-Path: <wwwrun@rfc-editor.org>
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 917193A0DB3 for <acme@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 25 Mar 2020 15:26:26 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, 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 VQ0l1urkwZ_i for <acme@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 25 Mar 2020 15:26:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rfc-editor.org (rfc-editor.org [4.31.198.49]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 980DF3A0DB2 for <acme@ietf.org>; Wed, 25 Mar 2020 15:26:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by rfc-editor.org (Postfix, from userid 30) id 82D38F406F7; Wed, 25 Mar 2020 15:25:57 -0700 (PDT)
To: 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
X-PHP-Originating-Script: 30:errata_mail_lib.php
From: RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
Cc: mp+ietf@hezmatt.org, acme@ietf.org, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Message-Id: <20200325222557.82D38F406F7@rfc-editor.org>
Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2020 15:25:57 -0700 (PDT)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/acme/QgjaR_FQwORORN-uX4_NP9QND80>
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 25 Mar 2020 15:43:51 -0700
Subject: [Acme] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8555 (6030)
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: Wed, 25 Mar 2020 22:26:27 -0000

The following errata report has been submitted for RFC8555,
"Automatic Certificate Management Environment (ACME)".

--------------------------------------
You may review the report below and at:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid6030

--------------------------------------
Type: Technical
Reported by: Matt Palmer <mp+ietf@hezmatt.org>

Section: 7.2

Original Text
-------------
To get a fresh nonce, the client sends a HEAD request to the newNonce
resource on the server.  The server's response MUST include a Replay-
Nonce header field containing a fresh nonce and SHOULD have status
code 200 (OK).  The server MUST also respond to GET requests for this
resource, returning an empty body (while still providing a Replay-
Nonce header) with a status code of 204 (No Content).

Corrected Text
--------------
To get a fresh nonce, the client sends a HEAD request to the newNonce
resource on the server.  The server's response MUST include a Replay-
Nonce header field containing a fresh nonce and SHOULD have status
code 204 (No Content).  The server MUST also respond to GET requests for this
resource, returning an empty body (while still providing a Replay-
Nonce header) with a status code of 204 (No Content).

Notes
-----
RFC7321 s4.3.2, says "The server SHOULD send the same header fields in response to a HEAD request as it would have sent if the request had been a GET".  I can't see any rationale for violating this SHOULD in the discussion in the GH issue which introduced the discrepancy in response code between GET and HEAD (https://github.com/ietf-wg-acme/acme/pull/371), thus (IMHO) it violates the tenets of a SHOULD, as "the full implications" do not appear to have "be[en] understood and carefully weighed before choosing a different course" (RFC2119, of course).

Instructions:
-------------
This erratum is currently posted as "Reported". If necessary, please
use "Reply All" to discuss whether it should be verified or
rejected. When a decision is reached, the verifying party  
can log in to change the status and edit the report, if necessary. 

--------------------------------------
RFC8555 (draft-ietf-acme-acme-18)
--------------------------------------
Title               : Automatic Certificate Management Environment (ACME)
Publication Date    : March 2019
Author(s)           : R. Barnes, J. Hoffman-Andrews, D. McCarney, J. Kasten
Category            : PROPOSED STANDARD
Source              : Automated Certificate Management Environment
Area                : Security
Stream              : IETF
Verifying Party     : IESG