Re: [Acme] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8555 (5732)
erica <erica@eff.org> Fri, 23 August 2019 21:02 UTC
Return-Path: <erica@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 9AF261200D5 for <acme@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 23 Aug 2019 14:02:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.002
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.002 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-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 dSP2GL5_KYHQ for <acme@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 23 Aug 2019 14:02:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail2.eff.org (mail2.eff.org [173.239.79.204]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0C1C4120047 for <acme@ietf.org>; Fri, 23 Aug 2019 14:02:21 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=eff.org; s=mail2; h=Message-ID:References:In-Reply-To:Subject:Cc:To:From:Date: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:MIME-Version:Sender:Reply-To: Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-Sender: Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:List-Id:List-Help:List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe:List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=GaWnCUwAC/L4LQzjRHxE38mUALyDqRzrTksabTvWOK4=; b=zOslYCo1eZLattlS4jQ96OI5Hy H0NyWJPlwcZ+59vwS8P2dITLeSekFvLeRPRxx2Pu+ZaMZBmswPGmPUuXKKptS7cZLcxlF5J/YucB1 JQjImrzyBG0KsZzqUGA347GWZQk43jJHKhawhXJFCOX6dTwiQEbT/gHxT7KISTUZzJjM=;
Received: ; Fri, 23 Aug 2019 14:02:00 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2019 14:02:00 -0700
From: erica <erica@eff.org>
To: RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
Cc: 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, rob@sectigo.com, acme@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <20190523094613.12695B81EDB@rfc-editor.org>
References: <20190523094613.12695B81EDB@rfc-editor.org>
Message-ID: <35f61c4a1188b11fc6a203d7cf0c5eeb@eff.org>
X-Sender: erica@eff.org
User-Agent: Webmail
Received-SPF: skipped for local relay
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/acme/eysjfpyIdSK1P76jpDLj2sJe-3c>
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Fri, 23 Aug 2019 15:09:31 -0700
Subject: Re: [Acme] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8555 (5732)
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: Fri, 23 Aug 2019 21:02:22 -0000
Hi, Erica from Certbot here. I'd love to see this get verified -- it seems impossible to implement the "retrying challenges" section as the spec currently stands. On 2019-05-23 02:46, RFC Errata System wrote: > The following errata report has been submitted for RFC8555, > "Automatic Certificate Management Environment (ACME)". > > -------------------------------------- > You may review the report below and at: > http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid5732 > > -------------------------------------- > Type: Technical > Reported by: Rob Stradling <rob@sectigo.com> > > Section: 8 > > Original Text > ------------- > A challenge object with an error MUST have status > equal to "invalid". > > Corrected Text > -------------- > A challenge object with an error MUST have status > equal to "processing" or "invalid". > > Notes > ----- > Section 8.2 says that 'The server MUST add an entry to the "error" > field in the challenge after each failed validation query'. However, > if the challenge must then become "invalid", it is never possible to > retry any validation query (because "invalid" is a final state for a > challenge object). > This erratum is necessary to permit validation query retries to ever > happen. > > 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 > > _______________________________________________ > Acme mailing list > Acme@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/acme
- [Acme] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8555 (5732) RFC Errata System
- Re: [Acme] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8555 (5… erica
- Re: [Acme] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8555 (5… Jacob Hoffman-Andrews
- Re: [Acme] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8555 (5… erica
- Re: [Acme] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8555 (5… Rob Stradling
- Re: [Acme] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8555 (5… Amir Omidi