IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Acme] Responding to challenges - spec bug?

Daniel McCarney <cpu@letsencrypt.org> Wed, 22 May 2019 15:59 UTC

Return-Path: <dmccarney@letsencrypt.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 07CF11201D2 for <acme@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 22 May 2019 08:59:56 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.009
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.009 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=letsencrypt.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 gy6Gh8OAJDGD for <acme@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 22 May 2019 08:59:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wm1-x32f.google.com (mail-wm1-x32f.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::32f]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2CE03120297 for <acme@ietf.org>; Wed, 22 May 2019 08:58:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wm1-x32f.google.com with SMTP id j187so5048756wma.1 for <acme@ietf.org>; Wed, 22 May 2019 08:58:50 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=letsencrypt.org; s=google; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:reply-to:from:date:message-id :subject:to:cc; bh=h/x0TL5YTM8VFr9Pez2FnmZEFcfRAw/ImEaAnakEeFA=; b=SDWr537nFFf1iFxXvSam1lcluNfWV5mmireY40ibyUPQc0Yd/3GHypua3s7S8gEPdH 7hnxDu3amqFOiDX1+d/uCW13OK4hSeNfK9FpZgkNDnXB435Uw+xSyBa9Wrz/doXVfsHR ZtcCCn0mLjpKwm0r4j6xPNTTT/veaOOO2u2bI=
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:reply-to :from:date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=h/x0TL5YTM8VFr9Pez2FnmZEFcfRAw/ImEaAnakEeFA=; b=pphHa1jN1/CKctu8dVPEniFBhR8CJekM4VptK8UhNOLUjqXlarnBoT7qeVmpd03xM/ 3GHdKk76UJOiLLVCD9cSCm6qGmEE7L8Dwx72yMC6MB7+7+g3kyEbTRDruwqV0qhEBCAN Az+hcMaZvXR5oruQYG1TxQnJlpokFa1RLdjAyd9cf+IcHe/87KOBjsvUmYBIeURG3VgZ YDB3XQ6FFxyPK9A7smKFqjhDNHIBQPbYHNL99ciU4Nh11slTTx1pj8d3qQ8jfvw74y6r aZE5/KeejGfjkKdVgglAqQS/4KJnvnC4N9L+kBTiX/pwf3z8XoqYu1Pm4BZIUEqVsyLr UUeQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAXjO7SxcFgpl8y/wLza1LKQYX/eqEX5I3mhAOahYxCkB1NrI5Gq 1bV0QZa9IOpFNY8igftDc9NRVjc5OB6L45Tl3T6TFQ==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqz9P/D4Mtodcubuwn+1s4M0BJtn6VPO0wguwwQ6v8IOhjVuZt+E3GYvpyNONIg6rjK5tj+Kd2W3zUHlKSAQILw=
X-Received: by 2002:a1c:98cf:: with SMTP id a198mr8589196wme.51.1558540728636; Wed, 22 May 2019 08:58:48 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <a5d40c1b-d412-33b6-baf0-103a0ce7dc60@sectigo.com> <20190520192917.GL1740@carrot.tutnicht.de> <1c0708c6-8e64-4897-a6ab-66c50f44bd17@sectigo.com>
In-Reply-To: <1c0708c6-8e64-4897-a6ab-66c50f44bd17@sectigo.com>
Reply-To: cpu@letsencrypt.org
From: Daniel McCarney <cpu@letsencrypt.org>
Date: Wed, 22 May 2019 11:58:37 -0400
Message-ID: <CAKnbcLjZqCJ=OjjLLEzp2rrJfg5ZM_6FqeZ_0_8kXD9zA0KCTw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Rob Stradling <rob@sectigo.com>
Cc: "acme@ietf.org" <acme@ietf.org>, Jörn Heissler <acme-specs@joern.heissler.de>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000007fad4705897c0a49"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/acme/dbPbYbc5xnrPsgT9g2C9vym9wNw>
Subject: Re: [Acme] Responding to challenges - spec bug?
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, 22 May 2019 15:59:56 -0000

Thanks Rob, I also agree this is a valid erratum finding with the spec.

On Wed, May 22, 2019 at 7:34 AM Rob Stradling <rob@sectigo.com> wrote:

> On 20/05/2019 20:29, Jörn Heissler wrote:
> > On Mon, May 20, 2019 at 15:56:21 +0000, Rob Stradling wrote:
> >> How would folks feel about an erratum to change that sentence in section
> >> 7.5.1 to the following:
> >>     'The client indicates to the server that it is ready for the
> challenge
> >>      validation by sending a POST request to the challenge URL (not the
> >>      authorization URL), where the body of the POST request is a JWS
> >>      object whose JSON payload is a response object (see Section 8).
> For
> >>      all challenge types defined in this document, the response object
> is
> >>      the empty JSON object ({}).'
> >> ?
> >
> > Hello,
> >
> > I agree with your finding and your suggested erratum.
>
> Thanks Jörn.
>
> I've filed an erratum for this:
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid5729
>
> --
> Rob Stradling
> Senior Research & Development Scientist
> Sectigo Limited
>
> _______________________________________________
> Acme mailing list
> Acme@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/acme
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email