Re: [Acme] Want client-defined callback port

"Salz, Rich" <rsalz@akamai.com> Fri, 17 April 2015 01:52 UTC

Return-Path: <rsalz@akamai.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 D4DF31A877B for <acme@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 16 Apr 2015 18:52:12 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.211
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.211 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] 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 J0UFfROW0hKb for <acme@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 16 Apr 2015 18:52:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from prod-mail-xrelay02.akamai.com (prod-mail-xrelay02.akamai.com [72.246.2.14]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2EBC21A8777 for <acme@ietf.org>; Thu, 16 Apr 2015 18:52:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from prod-mail-xrelay02.akamai.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by postfix.imss70 (Postfix) with ESMTP id 25D3628652; Fri, 17 Apr 2015 01:52:10 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from prod-mail-relay07.akamai.com (prod-mail-relay07.akamai.com [172.17.121.112]) by prod-mail-xrelay02.akamai.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1331B28651; Fri, 17 Apr 2015 01:52:10 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from email.msg.corp.akamai.com (ecp.msg.corp.akamai.com [172.27.123.33]) by prod-mail-relay07.akamai.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 05B4F80051; Fri, 17 Apr 2015 01:52:10 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from USMA1EX-DAG1MB2.msg.corp.akamai.com (172.27.123.102) by usma1ex-dag1mb2.msg.corp.akamai.com (172.27.123.102) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.913.22; Thu, 16 Apr 2015 21:48:25 -0400
Received: from USMA1EX-DAG1MB2.msg.corp.akamai.com ([172.27.123.102]) by usma1ex-dag1mb2.msg.corp.akamai.com ([172.27.123.102]) with mapi id 15.00.0913.011; Thu, 16 Apr 2015 21:48:13 -0400
From: "Salz, Rich" <rsalz@akamai.com>
To: Bruce Gaya <gaya@apple.com>, Jacob Hoffman-Andrews <jsha@eff.org>
Thread-Topic: [Acme] Want client-defined callback port
Thread-Index: AQHQeJFWLa11+CsrFEy/G1KlsESTHZ1Qde+AgAARCgD//+hToA==
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2015 01:48:12 +0000
Message-ID: <4fc1893400d948e5bfe40da8baa42e9b@usma1ex-dag1mb2.msg.corp.akamai.com>
References: <352DA5FE-AC6F-49A7-8F9F-70A74889204F@apple.com> <55303319.1030707@eff.org> <E6177D18-2C31-4725-976D-FB3FE12FAA03@apple.com>
In-Reply-To: <E6177D18-2C31-4725-976D-FB3FE12FAA03@apple.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [172.19.56.213]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/acme/gOh2VWI4c1-wPPhIeOz7pFNbgcw>
Cc: "acme@ietf.org" <acme@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Acme] Want client-defined callback port
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: Fri, 17 Apr 2015 01:52:13 -0000

> Because using a client-defined port for call backs does not have the
> requirement you just mentioned,  That leads to simpler ACME client design.

It's a trade-off.  On many common server systems being able to manipulate what's on 443 requires more privileges, and therefore is a stronger answer about "ownership" then, say, standing up some little scripting language server on port 55530

Having validation rely not just on the domain, but on the 443, seems like a good thing.

--  
Senior Architect, Akamai Technologies
IM: richsalz@jabber.at Twitter: RichSalz