Re: [Acme] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8555 (5979)

Richard Barnes <rlb@ipv.sx> Wed, 12 February 2020 02:48 UTC

Return-Path: <rlb@ipv.sx>
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 5055C12009C for <acme@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 11 Feb 2020 18:48:25 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.896
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.896 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=ipv-sx.20150623.gappssmtp.com
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 4-RJqk5ww-Qp for <acme@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 11 Feb 2020 18:48:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-qk1-x72a.google.com (mail-qk1-x72a.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::72a]) (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 F1E39120088 for <acme@ietf.org>; Tue, 11 Feb 2020 18:48:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-qk1-x72a.google.com with SMTP id w25so688638qki.3 for <acme@ietf.org>; Tue, 11 Feb 2020 18:48:22 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ipv-sx.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=UsdRBn4EYlDA2XUtauj9ic52Re0A5k8UrGaQSK9BOZw=; b=jIrZz5/vUPNR0pQHvtmH9k9m3vMJYugSZkdgmrwtWyUJCm1avD8j4na9qGOfW+UgKH 10ngOZd8dv4m7cLsDVKUtICsnw2hH4ncaFUcMcgrQ+UmMalnpqlCdRrRGUWiqNe3MpT2 30NWN+GE/3tZvnahOa3/Y2U+r5KoCLRMxMrvGfte+ipdFdEC8e4IvMaCpcwSGB02TEIT BbUvuRYvazPdY96Upz9ut4B8HTAadGcIutlsxt3NyXAUENR00TZWpORBX6g/aW8v1mvK lSueXT8FHPGXxyRMNdv9B4afThffqCKrcanY7qI5L2NGi6vefPQrNZzZSbTZNdANTo3A KZPg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=UsdRBn4EYlDA2XUtauj9ic52Re0A5k8UrGaQSK9BOZw=; b=leHF+kgwvqsrzSJze0rcAhBsGctOI/ZvUVpFIlRzxXk66ioFtfXYct8cVekGjU4FxK N/YRXeWiWWEUCCShG3X9attzeIM7h3KQagOYh0IYCTs/PCkraofb/kaUknXp84wTjtvZ e0mP7M+RRJHoNqvAsfAK4FnI2Q8hvrOklswA8Ob9WNdVxtahpgQa0wLBJ9l2dHPw/D3d wDEy74pd6hAC5mpt1ixlX0MbcVlExDwRGVIFRbvkwCoyeOVEeWTmglRvh+0hzVticaDd Ooxcwo41salaDYJvzOJMlFqT5dQZ+w86AVm/Ja3cw+rtNPWCwWsHeRiqeyKCSZXbblVu +bxA==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAVTlfXEqk+ojmA+9Yco7qTkdjc8ttrDaOTNDiDmtwn2DV5pMAh9 yUcbQbiS0wXzmDzJlX+aYo7FgOVDFAy1ZBjUYyMwZA==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqwWFfBss2KWycuVit+w1kn2WZkkABsfcjeXgWXDR0dxSUevQt4IjqM2DESvkWgVkpRUSfU0gTT+2GL39WEzTy4=
X-Received: by 2002:a37:73c7:: with SMTP id o190mr5762270qkc.490.1581475701784; Tue, 11 Feb 2020 18:48:21 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20200211214847.E0E30F40709@rfc-editor.org>
In-Reply-To: <20200211214847.E0E30F40709@rfc-editor.org>
From: Richard Barnes <rlb@ipv.sx>
Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2020 21:48:07 -0500
Message-ID: <CAL02cgSaD8y87Sb=FubN14P=5=sXCqNeNSLP9qGgL7dSyYWsZg@mail.gmail.com>
To: RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
Cc: Jacob Hoffman-Andrews <jsha@eff.org>, Daniel McCarney <cpu@letsencrypt.org>, James Kasten <jdkasten@umich.edu>, Roman Danyliw <rdd@cert.org>, Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu>, "Salz, Rich" <rsalz@akamai.com>, Yoav Nir <ynir.ietf@gmail.com>, jonathan@findmeon.com, IETF ACME <acme@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000006d190a059e580167"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/acme/lILHTWNsBeYPRJh0ft_hnUAVRV8>
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 11 Feb 2020 19:01:00 -0800
Subject: Re: [Acme] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8555 (5979)
X-BeenThere: acme@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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, 12 Feb 2020 02:48:25 -0000

ADs: This seems like a nice clarification, but not really an error.
Suggest HFDU.

On Tue, Feb 11, 2020 at 4:49 PM RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
wrote:

> The following errata report has been submitted for RFC8555,
> "Automatic Certificate Management Environment (ACME)".
>
> --------------------------------------
> You may review the report below and at:
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid5979
>
> --------------------------------------
> Type: Technical
> Reported by: jonathan vanasco <jonathan@findmeon.com>
>
> Section: 7.4
>
> Original Text
> -------------
>  If the server is willing to issue the requested certificate, it
>    responds with a 201 (Created) response.  The body of this response is
>    an order object reflecting the client's request and any
>    authorizations the client must complete before the certificate will
>    be issued.
>
>
>
> Corrected Text
> --------------
>  If the server is willing to issue the requested certificate, it
>    responds with a 201 (Created) response.  The body of this response is
>    an order object reflecting the client's request and any
>    authorizations the client must complete before the certificate will
>    be issued. The server returns an order URL in a Location header field.
>
>
> Notes
> -----
> The RFC does not specify/require where the "order URL" is presented.  The
> RFC is very explicit about where other URLs are obtained, and the common
> understanding is that the URL appears in a Location header after a
> new-order.
>
> For example:
>
> In 7.3; 7.3.1; 7.3.5, the RFC explicitly declares the account URL is in
> the Location header field.
>
> In 7.4.1 the RFC is explicit that authorization URLs in pre-authorization
> appear in the Location header field.
>
> But the order URL is only mentioned by example:
>
> In 7.4, the RFC illustrates the order URL appearing in the Location header
> field (All clients seem to implement this).  In 7.1, the RFC shows a table
> with "a typical sequence of requests" that note the "account" and "order"
> URLs appear in the location header field.
>
> The specification should state something to the effect of "The server
> returns an order URL in a Location header field." making this functionality
> explicit.
>
> Instructions:
> -------------
> This erratum is currently posted as "Reported". If necessary, please
> use "Reply All" to discuss whether it should be verified or
> rejected. When a decision is reached, the verifying party
> can log in to change the status and edit the report, if necessary.
>
> --------------------------------------
> RFC8555 (draft-ietf-acme-acme-18)
> --------------------------------------
> Title               : Automatic Certificate Management Environment (ACME)
> Publication Date    : March 2019
> Author(s)           : R. Barnes, J. Hoffman-Andrews, D. McCarney, J. Kasten
> Category            : PROPOSED STANDARD
> Source              : Automated Certificate Management Environment
> Area                : Security
> Stream              : IETF
> Verifying Party     : IESG
>