[Acme] Challenge names in final RFC
Jacob Hoffman-Andrews <jsha@eff.org> Mon, 13 March 2017 18:26 UTC
Return-Path: <jsha@eff.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 680151299FE for <acme@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 13 Mar 2017 11:26:37 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.003
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.003 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=eff.org
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 zDoVxbh-32-M for <acme@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 13 Mar 2017 11:26:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail2.eff.org (mail2.eff.org [173.239.79.204]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9A8A41299F1 for <acme@ietf.org>; Mon, 13 Mar 2017 11:26:31 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=eff.org; s=mail2; h=Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:MIME-Version:Date:Message-ID:Subject:From:To; bh=LqjESu6RGBmITndiME1rgsmzTTnu7EE8aXcIubJtq80=; b=RLqPQzX3T5dGXx+yC7V5dD4qGG5wldGUMMFdhx7S8rR/4EnxeTjHS0u2XU62kB+AjXTCR0qjEbCeL41T04I4vVKFkrkDErxaX3xwiSSHrlYPTdv42JMRkZ705UWtcKjxS31iQn78XhDExqFwyWEPfu7TpgRSvbz+YvElpfPDA2s=;
Received: ; Mon, 13 Mar 2017 11:26:33 -0700
To: "acme@ietf.org" <acme@ietf.org>
From: Jacob Hoffman-Andrews <jsha@eff.org>
Message-ID: <ba3e14cb-f811-659a-cf55-a0f3e0d67d37@eff.org>
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2017 11:26:30 -0700
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Received-SPF: skipped for local relay
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/acme/a_kdfNz2GZmgv32n-W66ELAquhc>
Subject: [Acme] Challenge names in final RFC
X-BeenThere: acme@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: Mon, 13 Mar 2017 18:26:37 -0000
Roland posted a PR tweaking the challenge names for the final RFC: https://github.com/ietf-wg-acme/acme/pull/272. This raised the question: What do we want the challenge names to be in the final RFC? I think we've been assuming that "http-01" would become "http" once the RFC is published. However, this does create a slightly deployment headache, in that draft-compatible implementations have to use one name, and RFC-compatible implementations have to use another, so it's hard to test working code with the final names before the RFC is really finalized. I don't have a strong opinion on this one way or another. What do folks on this list think?
- [Acme] Challenge names in final RFC Jacob Hoffman-Andrews
- Re: [Acme] Challenge names in final RFC Richard Barnes
- Re: [Acme] Challenge names in final RFC Roland Shoemaker
- Re: [Acme] Challenge names in final RFC Martin Thomson
- Re: [Acme] Challenge names in final RFC Alan Doherty
- Re: [Acme] Challenge names in final RFC Brad Warren