IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Acme] Content-Type and file extensions for HTTP01 challenges

Bryan Livingston <bryanlivingston@gmail.com> Wed, 18 November 2015 18:40 UTC

Return-Path: <bryanlivingston@gmail.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 646541A6EE1 for <acme@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 18 Nov 2015 10:40:45 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 ouakSgNyvGey for <acme@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 18 Nov 2015 10:40:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-lf0-x22c.google.com (mail-lf0-x22c.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c07::22c]) (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 BC59C1A6EDE for <acme@ietf.org>; Wed, 18 Nov 2015 10:40:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: by lfaz4 with SMTP id z4so32674683lfa.0 for <acme@ietf.org>; Wed, 18 Nov 2015 10:40:42 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=zDLfjc8lLzQUJV8YGiUf9rDknekE/ac79fupeHbPbXA=; b=uvDRd3WeaL8xcfxxEI9OWscUO2vYJSWHAB2/x3dEYvNL8x7Asa22LG/oMTUgSG2duI CDnb3sqyM3j0uugJ+JAFRnuUfVjO9oRZnybOvsVU2j0RNGiprvMOkhB+oio4zb/qEyeJ d5fCRkfhWFVzdMttbqbe4PHESxGW1e3yS2HIf6dao5CEJ7dg3l9VVY2E0u/l5U8DGbeI 8yT/xElgVcizBMIiCzbwjrBeaHgg2L4K+Mgb/59vw0Z4BgijFbJcXDQKGbh/UzHnnERS jb6Y2FgCtW8i//QkH79HqyX+s7RjG1+LunKz0M3agvg3RCW1WeGxjvMCmuDIS2PM9Lh+ UFrQ==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.25.207.149 with SMTP id f143mr1216146lfg.73.1447872041914; Wed, 18 Nov 2015 10:40:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.25.37.19 with HTTP; Wed, 18 Nov 2015 10:40:41 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <CANUQDChKYjojPKnz9cm6V0wZjjAy1Way_TL2-2wdOM_=Y9KW7Q@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20151113004436.GB18430@eff.org> <CABkgnnU5EzaPA4o7OgnTBpSQCZxjD+QsSV=4_L2rOBeFAoauKA@mail.gmail.com> <20151113011259.GC18430@eff.org> <1F85B447-6C45-4E5A-BB10-F1AD5CB2C3F3@vigilsec.com> <CABsBmKM9t3dX0_zq-EwsTOo7HpeMF6meiw9PhBaQLbHOCpGVGg@mail.gmail.com> <CAHw9_iJwqqhMb+7+aj6Sszfi6_K9=rREEK3dbpQ6yddrmHSKsg@mail.gmail.com> <CANUQDCgDeaLtaNfeEUQ3D=7EOwjL-Q0i6Q1FKxMTVtfY9d-bow@mail.gmail.com> <20151118180011.GW18430@eff.org> <CANUQDChKYjojPKnz9cm6V0wZjjAy1Way_TL2-2wdOM_=Y9KW7Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2015 11:40:41 -0700
Message-ID: <CABsBmKMY-7dWf0qvtsrrEZT+7roDa7OCtiOESKVg1RzZ5J9aHQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Bryan Livingston <bryanlivingston@gmail.com>
To: Niklas Keller <me@kelunik.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a11412e12bd1cee0524d4fa2c"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/acme/jr7eLY8mmuX7nZtm_RxuTdBnLyg>
Cc: Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com>, Peter Eckersley <pde@eff.org>, Warren Kumari <warren@kumari.net>, IETF ACME <acme@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Acme] Content-Type and file extensions for HTTP01 challenges
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: <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: Wed, 18 Nov 2015 18:40:45 -0000

It wouldn't break my client if the ACME servers started appending .txt to
the answer location. I'm just taking that string and using it as a
filename. Does the python client do the same?

On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 11:37 AM, Niklas Keller <me@kelunik.com> wrote:

> 2015-11-18 19:00 GMT+01:00 Peter Eckersley <pde@eff.org>:
>
>> Sounds like we have emerging consensus around this version of 3b.  Does
>> anyone know of anything it breaks?
>
>
> Apart from any current implementation? Nope.
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email