Re: [Acme] Editorial fixes in GitHub

Roland Bracewell Shoemaker <roland@letsencrypt.org> Wed, 25 January 2017 19:17 UTC

Return-Path: <roland@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 CA5B4129B14 for <acme@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 25 Jan 2017 11:17:49 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.701
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.701 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, 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 47XYwnPh6c3t for <acme@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 25 Jan 2017 11:17:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pf0-x22e.google.com (mail-pf0-x22e.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c00::22e]) (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 1B5FA129B12 for <acme@ietf.org>; Wed, 25 Jan 2017 11:17:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-pf0-x22e.google.com with SMTP id 189so60240007pfu.3 for <acme@ietf.org>; Wed, 25 Jan 2017 11:17:46 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=letsencrypt.org; s=google; h=subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version :in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=j1xM8WWAXKxFD4hoc2TzUOEvDqcJ6tglkv6jkCiUUPE=; b=KvJXvnEj6uhBMmvVdaFw/CSO9BM5jzwjjBXj6xoHICSXJvuGhRCxWR6z0Vw+bYqV4b 5tmxvT+Ip1bEdWs2izQ6ekhEbDk8wz6ylyf2MFgkMU827Ua5kV3cqHmFOoGRxmZQNRqD L4GHgvWV26cIT1BSOo4GIHRUdaw42nxzLexKM=
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=j1xM8WWAXKxFD4hoc2TzUOEvDqcJ6tglkv6jkCiUUPE=; b=WIrb6wNXV0auZqwJ6jiWfeV1NZrBhc9DtQ4ssSyXQ61ttT3Bs+hW3IdZ8fKlu69kjF zn/y0GD7mPLHMGVghVNHXEetAIxZqkwH7/Bhq8/BJ6kV4pT8u07iZ20OgI8PIRH/ITqA JLO//MHuvLc/UrbNSQFOPpU7a9gEAbE6eQ4SQ0d+USftMe+mWFcyx6sfTLd7mfWOoYrA Klh6ZKPE7uYyv6/tW7JzW3++vrWnHdlI8wqJwnQ206X7TvESIobIKumOQhU0Z6/o3qft TMx6LwLk03PM9p9+U6K6TLf8i5Q/RgkzY/qDr0VZYY8jPyA97dJzufZjAv1XRIxTRXTy nJTQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AIkVDXK6c0EBc+oVITiHU64NqcoMQJ0GDDKB6QCAI6o2IwDCw0e6UapYHH/3dPity+vv+qow
X-Received: by 10.98.70.12 with SMTP id t12mr48832854pfa.47.1485371865290; Wed, 25 Jan 2017 11:17:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.42.65] (50-0-146-254.dsl.dynamic.fusionbroadband.com. [50.0.146.254]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id h17sm2928038pfh.62.2017.01.25.11.17.44 for <acme@ietf.org> (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 25 Jan 2017 11:17:44 -0800 (PST)
To: acme@ietf.org
References: <760b7647-3a28-efb8-9189-3ab9c50cfe5d@eff.org> <d197a9b6-a626-1ef9-5b40-f782cffe726a@eff.org> <CAKnbcLhYvP8Spv-8Z_m_njsKY-S18_XhzkXkAb5U=u7hTJqS0Q@mail.gmail.com>
From: Roland Bracewell Shoemaker <roland@letsencrypt.org>
Message-ID: <18f5223c-effa-400f-5b06-e1ad07fb03db@letsencrypt.org>
Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2017 11:17:43 -0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.5.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAKnbcLhYvP8Spv-8Z_m_njsKY-S18_XhzkXkAb5U=u7hTJqS0Q@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/acme/kFyugtmWmc3beOxIUbFzqi9ldBo>
Subject: Re: [Acme] Editorial fixes in GitHub
X-BeenThere: acme@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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, 25 Jan 2017 19:17:50 -0000


On 01/24/2017 07:07 AM, Daniel McCarney wrote:
> 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.
> 

I'm fine losing this as LE doesn't plan on implementing it but I think
there is a valid argument to keep it if any other CA plans on
implementing ACME and CT but not embedding SCTs.

That said if it does stay the language definitely needs to be reworked
as it currently implies a certificate would only have a single SCT and
provides no guidance to how a list of SCTs should be presented to the
client/user from the endpoint.

> 
> On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 5:46 PM, Jacob Hoffman-Andrews <jsha@eff.org
> <mailto: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
>     <https://github.com/ietf-wg-acme/acme/pull/234>
>     Specify multi-viewpoint validation.
>     https://github.com/ietf-wg-acme/acme/pull/239
>     <https://github.com/ietf-wg-acme/acme/pull/239>
>     Specify server MAY follow HTTP redirects.
>     https://github.com/ietf-wg-acme/acme/pull/238
>     <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/231>
>     > https://github.com/ietf-wg-acme/acme/pull/232
>     <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/233>
>     > https://github.com/ietf-wg-acme/acme/pull/234
>     <https://github.com/ietf-wg-acme/acme/pull/234>
>     > https://github.com/ietf-wg-acme/acme/pull/235
>     <https://github.com/ietf-wg-acme/acme/pull/235>
>     >
>     > _______________________________________________
>     > Acme mailing list
>     > Acme@ietf.org <mailto:Acme@ietf.org>
>     > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/acme
>     <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/acme>
>     >
> 
>     _______________________________________________
>     Acme mailing list
>     Acme@ietf.org <mailto:Acme@ietf.org>
>     https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/acme
>     <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/acme>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Acme mailing list
> Acme@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/acme
>