IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Acme] ACME signature mechanics

Phillip Hallam-Baker <phill@hallambaker.com> Wed, 17 December 2014 23:06 UTC

Return-Path: <hallam@gmail.com>
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 BC5E01A0155 for <acme@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 17 Dec 2014 15:06:10 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.277
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.277 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, 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 cr1aIX7J0awe for <acme@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 17 Dec 2014 15:05:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-la0-x233.google.com (mail-la0-x233.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c03::233]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DE7A91A000B for <acme@ietf.org>; Wed, 17 Dec 2014 15:05:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-la0-f51.google.com with SMTP id ms9so37769lab.38 for <acme@ietf.org>; Wed, 17 Dec 2014 15:05:34 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject :from:to:cc:content-type; bh=kjxWjLfo9LlZL+Q9q8qtVsDc9gqGQH7wSgUigorJ/3w=; b=ZUV106ndTCiSERXUdfG9IoDxKhwTAxzxUoZaPu+VQYc28gOBcRzRF+wV4S4P068LvG SGREX5gUq6Rkrc3+mqO4Z5l5JKJAfnO6RouEbXREhl0W6Jhb23wVYhV3pwJnWjGsiH9C FZSomjiuPWJyW5N329dPgE/hSDj/7O8IaNkod8nV2Wta0e3Qno0DCWMqvB7Atva3zdEm MsqrqLNFREDngIJ2pwhdFL7tcjvPBp37NtegjADETJdRHT9KxB7ge/v6Kfdh0hMnu1X/ QzNScfe3/ViAoLR3AJzhv0M3u6hIehBOCAlV1aJJMTc2y5nCm+rXPzufe+aAKlTSUeOU jCmQ==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.152.37.74 with SMTP id w10mr4123508laj.85.1418857534581; Wed, 17 Dec 2014 15:05:34 -0800 (PST)
Sender: hallam@gmail.com
Received: by 10.112.19.42 with HTTP; Wed, 17 Dec 2014 15:05:34 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <20141217230310.GC9443@localhost>
References: <548FF9E3.1020703@gmail.com> <CAL02cgT9iYqtX2Ui5XQYnj=yeF_QnSkKn-jE0D5d56WMzB5bBg@mail.gmail.com> <CAMm+LwjwG0dPTkByu5WZ_ev3xNxAMwunoc-A_VK4sKPSZXRYDw@mail.gmail.com> <20141217171915.GX3241@localhost> <CAMm+LwjRk_skCW4bJ607YzeVrCN71o=p4gmzy0koYty-J7L2yQ@mail.gmail.com> <20141217230310.GC9443@localhost>
Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2014 18:05:34 -0500
X-Google-Sender-Auth: UsJZhO58R3manuiscZUo41y8Vho
Message-ID: <CAMm+LwjboeGq-LFpumVZ+oZmUJF+K9tWp_DWPi2GiF2i8b_NNQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Phillip Hallam-Baker <phill@hallambaker.com>
To: Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="089e0160b51a55f3a7050a7183ca"
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/acme/THoVJuCjuXv75D5ezGcF3CblFhY
Cc: Richard Barnes <rlb@ipv.sx>, "acme@ietf.org" <acme@ietf.org>, Anders Rundgren <anders.rundgren.net@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Acme] ACME signature mechanics
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: Wed, 17 Dec 2014 23:06:13 -0000

On Wed, Dec 17, 2014 at 6:03 PM, Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com>
wrote:
>
> On Wed, Dec 17, 2014 at 03:28:27PM -0500, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 17, 2014 at 12:19 PM, Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wed, Dec 17, 2014 at 12:02:10PM -0500, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
> > >
> > > That does leave two open issues to be decided though:
> > > >
> > > > 1 Should the signature header be part of the HTTP header or the
> payload?
> > >
> > > The payload.  And then you've created a new MIME type.
> >
> >
> > *message/rfc822*
>
> Wouldn't you need to subtype it?
>

No, not at all. The Content-type field can be ignored completely.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email