Re: [Acme] Editorial fixes in GitHub

Daniel McCarney <cpu@letsencrypt.org> Tue, 24 January 2017 15:07 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 CBAF3129A2D for <acme@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 24 Jan 2017 07:07:21 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.7
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 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_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-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 Nix9ZEOgKUoA for <acme@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 24 Jan 2017 07:07:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-lf0-x236.google.com (mail-lf0-x236.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c07::236]) (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 1DC151294D5 for <acme@ietf.org>; Tue, 24 Jan 2017 07:07:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-lf0-x236.google.com with SMTP id z134so112497454lff.3 for <acme@ietf.org>; Tue, 24 Jan 2017 07:07:18 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=letsencrypt.org; s=google; h=mime-version:reply-to:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id :subject:to:cc; bh=NobfRM5tmuJM/qsKaGHWsonGJdK1xI1ABSU2/HHvVrA=; b=Y1vFUm95z7DiL6u152Qn6hXoqs1TuWmZ766EieNH8UAEhSBfw7jxjKcfIeK9qfGKnr VV4k+hSqQCMU01DHLNGKjBPRLqxkgnqgGxJi1cafF+1o4Pj8NlzkommotVWOxNLY4APl 1g7Ta4GbZkujEa3/ANXhqWJERnsHq9PD8vR9c=
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:reply-to:in-reply-to:references :from:date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=NobfRM5tmuJM/qsKaGHWsonGJdK1xI1ABSU2/HHvVrA=; b=EFuFflYWYFMWOJ1d9mot3p7OfLgjglKYDjPoqnVkFekhZ2svue6pUXsQS45RTkHbGm euGGpDpEJWivr4BemQ+1o+gsM9pVQmmYVgJtDq2/7E8YVnA7XvMflfBPvZ+69zQOwDRR MePgXODwWghfJHNCFWZR5+uuyqLkgLuQSxc8xsLWBzbTAaSPHSti2/qTr3ueSHTiUf0L OKksQrLZdundnRSCc2N2yWVQgmSQ4vVvA18t8mwbUNMFArBAI0T7Pwqhr2LgBW/WS0sb A+qc+3Gq2VsM4ryBB7aNXmYxZmk5B+4GLeE8+JGGPai3ee7C5pi1HEti5NX6ZEaCmDN0 HXjg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AIkVDXLhs9FmJTGERyjhc3kIE992GfDo1TLnIVSvlEER7T4E0Qqltm+r6xV0xcfspC66HkC+A0jQuCEUZ0W+S1Jx
X-Received: by 10.25.67.19 with SMTP id q19mr11378999lfa.9.1485270436364; Tue, 24 Jan 2017 07:07:16 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.25.205.203 with HTTP; Tue, 24 Jan 2017 07:07:15 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <d197a9b6-a626-1ef9-5b40-f782cffe726a@eff.org>
References: <760b7647-3a28-efb8-9189-3ab9c50cfe5d@eff.org> <d197a9b6-a626-1ef9-5b40-f782cffe726a@eff.org>
From: Daniel McCarney <cpu@letsencrypt.org>
Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2017 10:07:15 -0500
Message-ID: <CAKnbcLhYvP8Spv-8Z_m_njsKY-S18_XhzkXkAb5U=u7hTJqS0Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: Jacob Hoffman-Andrews <jsha@eff.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="f403045ea4eac160f30546d87822"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/acme/hIWT7BhMzopPAjmepfkHu7QNAZw>
Cc: "acme@ietf.org" <acme@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Acme] Editorial fixes in GitHub
X-BeenThere: acme@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
Reply-To: cpu@letsencrypt.org
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: Tue, 24 Jan 2017 15:07:22 -0000

I've reviewed each and left comments or positive +1's in the form of
approved
Github reviews.

I'm in favour of removing the SCT link relation. It's unnecessary and as
Richard pointed out, easy to add back if it turns out the other SCT delivery
mechanisms aren't sufficient for a concrete use-case.


On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 5:46 PM, Jacob Hoffman-Andrews <jsha@eff.org> wrote:

> In review, Rich pointed out that some of these are more substantive and
> should be reviewed as such, so I broke them out into their own PRs:
>
> Remove SCT link relation. https://github.com/ietf-wg-acme/acme/pull/234
> Specify multi-viewpoint validation.
> https://github.com/ietf-wg-acme/acme/pull/239
> Specify server MAY follow HTTP redirects.
> https://github.com/ietf-wg-acme/acme/pull/238
>
> Note: the last one is more of a clarification of current behavior, since
> HTTP already says "MAY" for redirects. But a lot of ACME implementers
> have been surprised to hear that redirects are followed, so I think it's
> important to clarify.
>
> On 01/19/2017 11:55 AM, Jacob Hoffman-Andrews wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > I did a top-to-bottom review of the spec to look for coherency (since
> > we've changed a number of concepts), mistakes, and general consistency.
> > I filed several pull requests on GitHub:
> >
> > https://github.com/ietf-wg-acme/acme/pull/231
> > https://github.com/ietf-wg-acme/acme/pull/232
> > https://github.com/ietf-wg-acme/acme/pull/233
> > https://github.com/ietf-wg-acme/acme/pull/234
> > https://github.com/ietf-wg-acme/acme/pull/235
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Acme mailing list
> > Acme@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/acme
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> Acme mailing list
> Acme@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/acme
>