IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Acme] Issue: Allow ports other than 443

Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com> Tue, 24 November 2015 04:45 UTC

Return-Path: <martin.thomson@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 207E71B2CC7 for <acme@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 23 Nov 2015 20:45:54 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 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, 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 y7GjmIzIqd8S for <acme@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 23 Nov 2015 20:45:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-io0-x232.google.com (mail-io0-x232.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c06::232]) (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 E5D881B2CC5 for <acme@ietf.org>; Mon, 23 Nov 2015 20:45:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: by ioir85 with SMTP id r85so9031503ioi.1 for <acme@ietf.org>; Mon, 23 Nov 2015 20:45:52 -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=58IGLHVDGvCgmN9Re7B+yUtGqqduCdBXK2oqVL8Nd3s=; b=SzROCR9ne/OJqlzgp3DkXzmetEXm7EnUMTn3Kbe1YqR9fHlH5gOeszXGJ/gNbua+yF IgMOm1zbIqSPo84hFDV6XgOLo2YgiswfRTvc0zxQdGsbNEmxVOryqtY/7FjHLWeqvo6R J0a56wOcPi7zSOrI+reohGU+Mqr5I4TGfb5vLQreWEPTeGJwL5qS5oKwPabiUOXfj0Ej 47AlVhrZH/h2Uy/o9wVIsxtbkxIqq6XOsY0fb86TnIEaPLnjvmdTeweviGQaAwup2oq+ ebQ2rlL5P4cf+3Ue3QyRgfraKccZ38rS47fLNpMBhyx8IVSR71SF2zRSqrUymOge0olx pURw==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.107.169.29 with SMTP id s29mr29847072ioe.190.1448340352254; Mon, 23 Nov 2015 20:45:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.36.155.139 with HTTP; Mon, 23 Nov 2015 20:45:52 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <m2si3wozrh.wl%randy@psg.com>
References: <5e9b22a3942d4a39981878b13e4a7752@usma1ex-dag1mb1.msg.corp.akamai.com> <0630035C-E4F6-41AA-A339-7101B448F0FA@vigilsec.com> <m2si3wozrh.wl%randy@psg.com>
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2015 20:45:52 -0800
Message-ID: <CABkgnnVgU3sFcMnk=emADi9x7OR2bypGKqn4QBZuBuFC9sOHyg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
To: Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/acme/m99DTyBP754s_rEksJH30JoCDao>
Cc: IETF ACME <acme@ietf.org>, Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com>
Subject: Re: [Acme] Issue: Allow ports other than 443
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: Tue, 24 Nov 2015 04:45:54 -0000

On 23 November 2015 at 19:13, Randy Bush <randy@psg.com> wrote:
> which is easier, going through kink on 443 or getting the IT security
> team to punch a hole for <iana-assigned-acme>?


A very good question.  Would it help if you could choose the option
that sucked least for your particular situation?  That was what I was
thinking.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email