Re: [Acme] Issue: Allow ports other than 443

Randy Bush <randy@psg.com> Tue, 24 November 2015 13:11 UTC

Return-Path: <randy@psg.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 D5EAF1A6EFC for <acme@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 24 Nov 2015 05:11:37 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.485
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.485 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.585] autolearn=ham
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 4jvDMpSI9WPl for <acme@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 24 Nov 2015 05:11:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ran.psg.com (ran.psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:8006::18]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DE27F1A6EFB for <acme@ietf.org>; Tue, 24 Nov 2015 05:11:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=ryuu.psg.com) by ran.psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from <randy@psg.com>) id 1a1DNb-00033q-Tm; Tue, 24 Nov 2015 13:11:32 +0000
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2015 14:11:31 +0100
Message-ID: <m2io4ro83g.wl%randy@psg.com>
From: Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>
To: Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <56545B4C.3020406@cisco.com>
References: <5e9b22a3942d4a39981878b13e4a7752@usma1ex-dag1mb1.msg.corp.akamai.com> <0630035C-E4F6-41AA-A339-7101B448F0FA@vigilsec.com> <CABkgnnUxSwMmOR=QVE-gMvj9dHW6Tk2Z=EO7RDx6E5zVAp_SrQ@mail.gmail.com> <20151124033325.GH18430@eff.org> <56545B4C.3020406@cisco.com>
User-Agent: Wanderlust/2.15.9 (Almost Unreal) Emacs/22.3 Mule/5.0 (SAKAKI)
MIME-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI 1.14.7 - "Harue")
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/acme/Za-6BBN5_SvlLYm6AuxpYgrNUEQ>
Cc: Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com>, Peter Eckersley <pde@eff.org>, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>, IETF ACME <acme@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Acme] Issue: Allow ports other than 443
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: <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: Tue, 24 Nov 2015 13:11:38 -0000

> Isn't this precisely what .well-known was meant to address?

fun small research project.  what percentage of well-known ports can
you connect to from the outside to a machine inside cisco?  hell, to
what percentage of well-known ports outside cisco can you reach from
inside?

well-known does not correlate well with open to access by IT security
departments.

randy