Re: [Acme] Server on >= 1024 port

James Cloos <cloos@jhcloos.com> Wed, 02 December 2015 23:10 UTC

From: James Cloos <cloos@jhcloos.com>
To: Richard Barnes <rlb@ipv.sx>
In-Reply-To: <CAL02cgQPZrx5d1xO-xKEQrV+pZKLkhYW_XDSm=QM8THs__s5qQ@mail.gmail.com> (Richard Barnes's message of "Wed, 2 Dec 2015 10:17:47 -0500")
References: <565589E4.2030107@desy.de> <565EBF56.3070502@desy.de> <D836A378-DA88-4AAF-B1E4-F34A80319DC1@gmail.com> <e9092589f3204a449af8b6f900be1303@usma1ex-dag1mb1.msg.corp.akamai.com> <CAL02cgQPZrx5d1xO-xKEQrV+pZKLkhYW_XDSm=QM8THs__s5qQ@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.130014 (Ma Gnus v0.14) Emacs/25.0.50 (gnu/linux)
Face: iVBORw0KGgoAAAANSUhEUgAAABAAAAAQAgMAAABinRfyAAAACVBMVEX///8ZGXBQKKnCrDQ3 AAAAJElEQVQImWNgQAAXzwQg4SKASgAlXIEEiwsSIYBEcLaAtMEAADJnB+kKcKioAAAAAElFTkSu QmCC
Copyright: Copyright 2015 James Cloos
OpenPGP: 0x997A9F17ED7DAEA6; url=https://jhcloos.com/public_key/0x997A9F17ED7DAEA6.asc
OpenPGP-Fingerprint: E9E9 F828 61A4 6EA9 0F2B 63E7 997A 9F17 ED7D AEA6
Date: Wed, 02 Dec 2015 18:07:11 -0500
Message-ID: <m3si3kih5s.fsf@carbon.jhcloos.org>
Lines: 16
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/acme/hjLGboATsoIaUZ_cmvDt6KzFX0U>
Cc: Paul Millar <paul.millar@desy.de>, "Salz, Rich" <rsalz@akamai.com>, "acme@ietf.org" <acme@ietf.org>, Yoav Nir <ynir.ietf@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Acme] Server on >= 1024 port
Precedence: list

>>>>> "RB" == Richard Barnes <rlb@ipv.sx> writes:

RB> If you look at what CAs do today, that basically means the port is
RB> 80/443.  More generally, it means that the port needs to be specified
RB> by the challenge mechanism and not by the client.

What CAs do any kind of challenge over anything other than smtp?

Tcp port numbers have no significance to "control of a domain".

Or "control of a hostname", since the certs are issued for hostnames and
not for domain names.

-JimC
-- 
James Cloos <cloos@jhcloos.com>         OpenPGP: 0x997A9F17ED7DAEA6

[Acme] Server on >= 1024 port Paul Millar
Re: [Acme] Server on >= 1024 port moparisthebest
Re: [Acme] Server on >= 1024 port Eric Rescorla
Re: [Acme] Server on >= 1024 port moparisthebest
Re: [Acme] Server on >= 1024 port Roland Zink
Re: [Acme] Server on >= 1024 port Martin Thomson
Re: [Acme] Server on >= 1024 port Paul Millar
Re: [Acme] Server on >= 1024 port Randy Bush
Re: [Acme] Server on >= 1024 port Yoav Nir
Re: [Acme] Server on >= 1024 port Yoav Nir
Re: [Acme] Server on >= 1024 port Rob Stradling
Re: [Acme] Server on >= 1024 port Stephen Farrell
Re: [Acme] Server on >= 1024 port Rob Stradling
Re: [Acme] Server on >= 1024 port Paul Millar
Re: [Acme] Server on >= 1024 port Phillip Hallam-Baker
Re: [Acme] Server on >= 1024 port Yoav Nir
Re: [Acme] Server on >= 1024 port Salz, Rich
Re: [Acme] Server on >= 1024 port Richard Barnes
Re: [Acme] Server on >= 1024 port Niklas Keller
Re: [Acme] Server on >= 1024 port Ted Hardie
Re: [Acme] Server on >= 1024 port Salz, Rich
Re: [Acme] Server on >= 1024 port Phillip Hallam-Baker
Re: [Acme] Server on >= 1024 port Phillip Hallam-Baker
Re: [Acme] Server on >= 1024 port Romain Fliedel
Re: [Acme] Server on >= 1024 port Ted Hardie
Re: [Acme] Server on >= 1024 port Phillip Hallam-Baker
Re: [Acme] Server on >= 1024 port Romain Fliedel
Re: [Acme] Server on >= 1024 port Phillip Hallam-Baker
Re: [Acme] Server on >= 1024 port Peter Eckersley
Re: [Acme] Server on >= 1024 port Peter Eckersley
Re: [Acme] Server on >= 1024 port Peter Eckersley
Re: [Acme] Server on >= 1024 port James Cloos
Re: [Acme] Server on >= 1024 port Richard Barnes
Re: [Acme] Server on >= 1024 port Phillip Hallam-Baker
Re: [Acme] Server on >= 1024 port Peter Eckersley
Re: [Acme] Server on >= 1024 port James Cloos
Re: [Acme] Server on >= 1024 port Eric Rescorla
Re: [Acme] Server on >= 1024 port Niklas Keller
Re: [Acme] Server on >= 1024 port Randy Bush
Re: [Acme] Server on >= 1024 port Eric Mill
Re: [Acme] Server on >= 1024 port Darren J Moffat
Re: [Acme] Server on >= 1024 port Rob Stradling
Re: [Acme] Server on >= 1024 port Ángel González
Re: [Acme] Server on >= 1024 port Vincent Lynch