IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Acme] ACME breaking change: Most GETs become POSTs

Daniel McCarney <cpu@letsencrypt.org> Fri, 31 August 2018 18:56 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 5188A130DD9 for <acme@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 31 Aug 2018 11:56:54 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.01
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.01 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_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.01] 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 DvP9j9TeWVX3 for <acme@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 31 Aug 2018 11:56:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-io0-x236.google.com (mail-io0-x236.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c06::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 2DF46128CFD for <acme@ietf.org>; Fri, 31 Aug 2018 11:56:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-io0-x236.google.com with SMTP id w11-v6so11236691iob.2 for <acme@ietf.org>; Fri, 31 Aug 2018 11:56:51 -0700 (PDT)
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=mXyxDnAIOFtvJDx+uHFH7xL5KoET+h2HQU975JBYKj8=; b=XeyLj09x9oUKxEQTHRx9uWMKKWaZ/mELkdcMtnhYWx3h1+PRkQcAZXPGpMw3md/yji uWIo1DjJaJJX5IkknggneZC8omtH21tjLvNeG5JVagCi4fjpoFD6gDdvrgrIirFYKmlV iQRJykTwagjU0FJfphZ3lGWLzZ3FGicwU4ZIA=
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=mXyxDnAIOFtvJDx+uHFH7xL5KoET+h2HQU975JBYKj8=; b=axzpsb60bvETh3Bx7CCWGREZAQt4iMoS8js3rDZ66dxHkxXe2uHOwXUyfo+yvmK7zF Q599RvQiK1z6aY//23X88mbH3Ze0hmEHXq65gE9zShgy6r2u3Rs+ZXdVuL2saDxZi7gR KjRrYy3YOXnt8VaXGnLTArKm2sz2JE1nFuPYNy6Ipa4t+/Ba6rYlY4j2WYJrYYV+WFU9 rXTXkh8fMJeALoCmA+m1sTNi+8LafOG6Y1BupJ7/TxytZ62b3yqyIzYJVxbZ9k7HlKr3 TsZ2NacZHtBAy+bCAOzchl1qBfPD7en8alxJhLfop9wBHlSvXO9XzVGxw2P9EXMS0LIf d0UQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: APzg51CCTxKEwNIF2NptyWKecf3v2VZ7kUdYH114IRM9WiImoS0z2iQq Vi7g9RoaCbVtMYqVcrjeQir9gDv37hREYD8Z+2K+rA==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ANB0VdbhmOBuU+kCrOHql/Ya8nexfiCHspEymwgTP5NSBUM96Ng/Uw2RyFf4JoY6jV8Mi4t/c8P3jrmuptv9KCC5jcc=
X-Received: by 2002:a6b:ac45:: with SMTP id v66-v6mr13754392ioe.66.1535741806800; Fri, 31 Aug 2018 11:56:46 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Reply-To: cpu@letsencrypt.org
Received: by 2002:a6b:20d2:0:0:0:0:0 with HTTP; Fri, 31 Aug 2018 11:56:46 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAL02cgQ=FjSLYuzKMnkbVHqPaU7A1sc5xSCk6dWa67=1a3b3vw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <c33184f3-4e64-b7ea-babb-d29e2307f1f3@eff.org> <CAL02cgRD=UgsaDeWN9hy2YXN=CLLQpt+zgaZKPTqDpoiMi0hqw@mail.gmail.com> <863A4A5E-718A-4C29-AE82-097C70BE75B6@akamai.com> <CAL02cgQ=FjSLYuzKMnkbVHqPaU7A1sc5xSCk6dWa67=1a3b3vw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Daniel McCarney <cpu@letsencrypt.org>
Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2018 14:56:46 -0400
Message-ID: <CAKnbcLhiGSKqmd5Hq3fn3YOwDCQfDa7XW0YuzK4FgmxAKZ+XWA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Richard Barnes <rlb@ipv.sx>
Cc: "Salz, Rich" <rsalz@akamai.com>, IETF ACME <acme@ietf.org>, Jacob Hoffman-Andrews <jsha@eff.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000dc87eb0574bfc094"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/acme/iLBkuik3kQPK0b9Gz7-UmGCrLKI>
Subject: Re: [Acme] ACME breaking change: Most GETs become POSTs
X-BeenThere: acme@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.27
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, 31 Aug 2018 18:56:54 -0000

I think its an anti-pattern to standardize protocol features that haven't
been implemented by anyone so here's a PR[0] for the Pebble ACME server
that implements Richard's proposal[1] to establish viability. The
proposal seems
OK to me given the trade-offs/alternatives on the table.

I would encourage other ACME client/server developers to try their hand at
implementing the changes from [1] as well. I've tested my PR with
hand-rolled requests but not as part of an automated issuance process with
a "real" ACME client. Speak now or forever hold your bugs.

[0] - https://github.com/letsencrypt/pebble/pull/162
[1] - https://github.com/ietf-wg-acme/acme/pull/445/files

On Fri, Aug 31, 2018 at 1:21 PM, Richard Barnes <rlb@ipv.sx> wrote:

> No, if a server receives a GET request for a resource other than those
> specified, then it MUST return 405.  But please check out the PR and see if
> it's clear there.
>
> On Fri, Aug 31, 2018 at 1:14 PM Salz, Rich <rsalz@akamai.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>    - * Servers MUST return a 405 if they get a GET for a resource other
>>    than directory/newNonce/certificate.
>>
>>
>>
>> They means client? Or there’s a word missing, and “they get a” is “they
>> do not support”
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Acme mailing list
> Acme@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/acme
>
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email