IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Acme] ACME or EST?

Randy Bush <randy@psg.com> Sat, 29 November 2014 14:01 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 1E5161A1A37 for <acme@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 29 Nov 2014 06:01:56 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.51
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.51 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_05=-0.5, 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 K4AAo3C-CGcj for <acme@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 29 Nov 2014 06:01:54 -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 433501A1A33 for <acme@ietf.org>; Sat, 29 Nov 2014 06:01:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=ryuu.psg.com.psg.com) by ran.psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from <randy@psg.com>) id 1Xuiat-0000ge-R8; Sat, 29 Nov 2014 14:01:52 +0000
Date: Sat, 29 Nov 2014 09:01:44 -0500
Message-ID: <m261dy14xj.wl%randy@psg.com>
From: Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>
To: Tony Arcieri <bascule@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAHOTMV+Ch3ViOfQbiwfh=UU96pGONBZiMsaDZUn1x5cHOT=wNw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AD5940AA-6F01-4D0E-A4E0-19AEA56BBED3@vpnc.org> <CAL02cgTgpjQffow2XuaNuT7BtqYVttXdVUgyqBFbsAbN4g0VzQ@mail.gmail.com> <DEC7A8A8-563D-41B3-94AC-71DC7219D3F8@cisco.com> <CAHOTMVLJFQsKUVaZueeqx4NRtzM+a4asU14YnQPC+2LHQCtcEQ@mail.gmail.com> <54752FD9.6040708@cs.tcd.ie> <m27fyg4yzg.wl%randy@psg.com> <CAMm+LwjOgYistjb8jo_aw0jJ9+0YpL++Y4yJONj1rCGG0kC94A@mail.gmail.com> <DM2PR0301MB0655D5E0292BAE408C92B3B7A8710@DM2PR0301MB0655.namprd03.prod.outlook.com> <CAHOTMV+Ch3ViOfQbiwfh=UU96pGONBZiMsaDZUn1x5cHOT=wNw@mail.gmail.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/gq-R-Bd-Hnaa19niIJHvIicIUMc
Cc: ACME <acme@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Acme] ACME or EST?
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: Sat, 29 Nov 2014 14:01:56 -0000

> Christian Huitema <huitema@microsoft.com>
>> I am not sure that the message description language matters very much
Tony Arcieri <bascule@gmail.com>
> Here's a paper that argues otherwise:
> http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~sergey/langsec/papers/langsec-tr.pdf

how did you guess what i had in mind :)?  one would hope that we do not
need to be taught this lesson yet again.  the only answer i have gotten
is an example parser,
https://github.com/quartzjer/js0n/blob/master/src/js0n.c which, while an
fsm, does not unequivocally make the case that the language is lr.

randy

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email