[Acme] "Status" field clarification

Richard Barnes <rlb@ipv.sx> Fri, 02 March 2018 14:04 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 20DA2126BF6 for <acme@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 2 Mar 2018 06:04:40 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 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_LOW=-0.7] 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 a82e7736NhOW for <acme@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 2 Mar 2018 06:04:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-wm0-x22e.google.com (mail-wm0-x22e.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c09::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 B2027120725 for <acme@ietf.org>; Fri, 2 Mar 2018 06:04:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-wm0-x22e.google.com with SMTP id q83so3361975wme.5 for <acme@ietf.org>; Fri, 02 Mar 2018 06:04:36 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ipv-sx.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=thqQTDJ+fREu5TmUL8nD+JRaWhvtdURHMOS/Vf37Ntk=; b=H3qzorCzyYzo635vl8d139XFRPKYF5GGk1HJYEkb2Lgp04IGMVITmpGa1CT5lm0Jk8 XcJE54EkZplHUlA6mWCJV+GcsbFcdUK3OBeVE0AMyqNcLoCPq8R2Qa6ohPuntkFoMtX6 qQVH4XgHouBKpGGy93Q2c8+ZN77A6ZNcp2HnCFAXjfzg7BoLjEQK1N6hN98BU9KbUcH/ b6m9LvbLn619DofmlhJ4Tr+1LUkcu00xYQAR3aCtlQlOzZz2QHluOlQUmwcKhoZEztH2 ddoQ7ZbOFSUR5PI5RHyZ5B5xkCcJAhMM2tLuTic7FfNgEuZn1zKxdlxXClAnUajw8AxG D7iQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=thqQTDJ+fREu5TmUL8nD+JRaWhvtdURHMOS/Vf37Ntk=; b=bq6kzDeXnShzrZrtox+Euk/hvyqMNP+J6CkSIEv9i2oBNt9E7PR67O6gQ4kYD8R4Os XnsZPk+3rcttlW0mCL5lSlckCflqw0e1nOy8adgoh0tPTwBz+dpC7A61v4Y5353Jf83o fXymIPNmfIxRvr7JVWnZBOwFG2tdKxX4lK3ef6UToYqJbTR9QKTz5jCXMEPUZHhgcbw8 DxHGoKYnr0z7Bh791HwhT28l3IfG/HONzL9iGe5mmmKFoSV0E+9qQJl3Ad0lnON0iIJc EG39xVXvuZQqZ75cYrBUyP0LI8b+KezrwLEjPNUtVdfKQtZBuPNCSJcQnWLWSeoK2HaE B7Ug==
X-Gm-Message-State: AElRT7F5X0S/OjyoJO+90b/zEUzEN2H4X/MyK6NoxWmMS8Hd0kATj5Qo 73hc8NZkWDD9lmCLUWG+Lgz+6FPPyq3hZnAqTG+hhhrRDi0=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AG47ELvgt9VCGwmduAzwOhDHs5QXhdj2I/zz2hbr1ALjMNtsqJvjYwv0OSgcOuMsyUTNZp+2yw2+qGXAajKLa88QG6c=
X-Received: by 10.28.109.78 with SMTP id i75mr1755895wmc.61.1519999474835; Fri, 02 Mar 2018 06:04:34 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.28.12.140 with HTTP; Fri, 2 Mar 2018 06:04:33 -0800 (PST)
From: Richard Barnes <rlb@ipv.sx>
Date: Fri, 02 Mar 2018 09:04:33 -0500
Message-ID: <CAL02cgSFpJPqwBuNRXq_yaTKpdnO63uEHH38OGCqQrrO1LNL7Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: IETF ACME <acme@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a114779a2c1c07a05666e7463"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/acme/trGr_ovYr3HTCWZFy9L5ovCHB8o>
Subject: [Acme] "Status" field clarification
X-BeenThere: acme@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: Fri, 02 Mar 2018 14:04:40 -0000

Hey all,

We had a couple of GitHub issues and mailing list posts expressing
confusion about the "status" field in ACME objects.  To try to clear all of
that up, I've posted a PR that lays out required state transitions and
aligns the field descriptions with that description.  All the description
should look very familiar.  The only innovation is to introduce a "ready"
state on orders, to give clients an easy way to know when to finalize.

https://github.com/ietf-wg-acme/acme/pull/400

As you're probably aware the I-D deadline is Monday, so please send
comments ASAP.  If I don't hear anything back from this list, I'll confer
with my fellow editors and we'll make a unilateral decision for us to
discuss in London (and obviously roll back if needed).

Thanks,
--Richard