Re: [Acme] Want client-defined callback port

Michael Ströder <michael@stroeder.com> Fri, 08 May 2015 16:15 UTC

Return-Path: <michael@stroeder.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 448AC1AC425 for <acme@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 8 May 2015 09:15:46 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.413
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.413 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_20=-0.001, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] 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 BGjhrGjvfp7d for <acme@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 8 May 2015 09:15:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from srv1.stroeder.com (srv1.stroeder.com [213.240.180.113]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2CEDC1ACEA2 for <acme@ietf.org>; Fri, 8 May 2015 09:15:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from srv4.stroeder.local (srv4.stroeder.local [10.1.1.7]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "mail.stroeder.local", Issuer "stroeder.com Server CA no. 2009-07" (not verified)) by srv1.stroeder.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 750EB1CE24 for <acme@ietf.org>; Fri, 8 May 2015 16:15:41 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from nb2.stroeder.local (nb2.stroeder.local [10.1.1.5]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by srv4.stroeder.local (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3576B1D0E5 for <acme@ietf.org>; Fri, 8 May 2015 16:15:38 +0000 (UTC)
Message-ID: <554CE129.1090209@stroeder.com>
Date: Fri, 08 May 2015 18:15:37 +0200
From: =?UTF-8?Q?Michael_Str=c3=b6der?= <michael@stroeder.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:36.0) Gecko/20100101 SeaMonkey/2.33.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "acme@ietf.org" <acme@ietf.org>
References: <352DA5FE-AC6F-49A7-8F9F-70A74889204F@apple.com> <CAK3OfOjey4bk02qC_jj2c0AzZ54qnP=KAJnG=mXnO6A5gZ4m9g@mail.gmail.com> <CAL02cgQ94ijVrCM9SStcodRW+XSG2w5Zwu3+ny8HriDBnxjdtg@mail.gmail.com> <FF21526F-BA8D-4F54-AAE3-047632706668@apple.com> <CAL02cgSDk0TNYusEkXA3onmqF7=kaAWhHjpW8WjbiqxgQMdQwQ@mail.gmail.com> <555F6C74-2416-4893-BDEA-A3C2E55A6D57@apple.com> <16985cf1c8c444c48d328fa766ec5ff8@usma1ex-dag1mb2.msg.corp.akamai.com> <DE264105-7317-4343-BCEE-539A73D42544@apple.com> <CAL02cgTv5Zi4wP0gJPvcrty6N96pAaLRkCveyvMNfoyjQrrEyw@mail.gmail.com> <0609C348-A6D8-46D5-AF58-5BE69910D261@apple.com> <CAL02cgT_DPY-Bn9A=UtCx+g2FKHON-TXGCWfH-gL8rR4yEFHZg@mail.gmail.com> <CA+9kkMAqte7O0k0KVRLRaEOmJL-wK0ncoruv3yoqKBjZVnc99g@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CA+9kkMAqte7O0k0KVRLRaEOmJL-wK0ncoruv3yoqKBjZVnc99g@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg=sha-256; boundary="------------ms020904050707090609090408"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/acme/qzbLvwdioX4WdN-qNJfyD6p_duo>
Subject: Re: [Acme] Want client-defined callback port
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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, 08 May 2015 16:15:46 -0000

Ted Hardie wrote:
> Forgive the top posting, but I want to be sure I understand something.  If
> the client specifies a port that is below 1024 but canonically used for
> something else, what is the specified behavior?  My reading of the thread
> so far is that the server would expect to run ACME over it, even if were
> specified for, say, LDAP (389).

I always considered it to be a design flaw that server certs ony contain a 
host name while e.g. browser's Same-Origin-Policy is based on 
(protocol,hostname,port).

This discussion is yet another result of this deficiency.

Ciao, Michael.