Re: [Acme] Server on >= 1024 port

Rob Stradling <rob.stradling@comodo.com> Thu, 26 November 2015 11:32 UTC

To: Yoav Nir <ynir.ietf@gmail.com>
References: <565589E4.2030107@desy.de> <5655EC72.7060300@moparisthebest.com> <CABcZeBOJ6O+P3U1EJoRkKaHaJVVBtLiQwpRp5aNOa+fX-noPjQ@mail.gmail.com> <5655EFCF.9090403@moparisthebest.com> <5655FC50.7000508@zinks.de> <m2lh9lko2j.wl%randy@psg.com> <5D0426D4-683C-46DF-B44C-B3F048536236@gmail.com>
From: Rob Stradling <rob.stradling@comodo.com>
Message-ID: <5656EDD2.8030601@comodo.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2015 11:32:34 +0000
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.3.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <5D0426D4-683C-46DF-B44C-B3F048536236@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/acme/uhzoeK6uKTK0GuzTqwJrS_G0p0U>
Cc: Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>, acme WG <acme@ietf.org>, Roland Zink <roland@zinks.de>
Subject: Re: [Acme] Server on >= 1024 port
Precedence: list

On 26/11/15 11:20, Yoav Nir wrote:
<snip>
> Another thing is that I don’t get why some CAs have the web *client* authentication EKU thrown in there.

Because a sufficiently large number of customers asked for it.  :-)

AIUI the use case is server-to-server comms, where server A acts as a 
TLS client and server B requires TLS client auth.  Server A also acts as 
a TLS server and its operator doesn't want to have to manage 2 different 
certs.

-- 
Rob Stradling
Senior Research & Development Scientist
COMODO - Creating Trust Online

[Acme] Server on >= 1024 port Paul Millar
Re: [Acme] Server on >= 1024 port moparisthebest
Re: [Acme] Server on >= 1024 port Eric Rescorla
Re: [Acme] Server on >= 1024 port moparisthebest
Re: [Acme] Server on >= 1024 port Roland Zink
Re: [Acme] Server on >= 1024 port Martin Thomson
Re: [Acme] Server on >= 1024 port Paul Millar
Re: [Acme] Server on >= 1024 port Randy Bush
Re: [Acme] Server on >= 1024 port Yoav Nir
Re: [Acme] Server on >= 1024 port Yoav Nir
Re: [Acme] Server on >= 1024 port Rob Stradling
Re: [Acme] Server on >= 1024 port Stephen Farrell
Re: [Acme] Server on >= 1024 port Rob Stradling
Re: [Acme] Server on >= 1024 port Paul Millar
Re: [Acme] Server on >= 1024 port Phillip Hallam-Baker
Re: [Acme] Server on >= 1024 port Yoav Nir
Re: [Acme] Server on >= 1024 port Salz, Rich
Re: [Acme] Server on >= 1024 port Richard Barnes
Re: [Acme] Server on >= 1024 port Niklas Keller
Re: [Acme] Server on >= 1024 port Ted Hardie
Re: [Acme] Server on >= 1024 port Salz, Rich
Re: [Acme] Server on >= 1024 port Phillip Hallam-Baker
Re: [Acme] Server on >= 1024 port Phillip Hallam-Baker
Re: [Acme] Server on >= 1024 port Romain Fliedel
Re: [Acme] Server on >= 1024 port Ted Hardie
Re: [Acme] Server on >= 1024 port Phillip Hallam-Baker
Re: [Acme] Server on >= 1024 port Romain Fliedel
Re: [Acme] Server on >= 1024 port Phillip Hallam-Baker
Re: [Acme] Server on >= 1024 port Peter Eckersley
Re: [Acme] Server on >= 1024 port Peter Eckersley
Re: [Acme] Server on >= 1024 port Peter Eckersley
Re: [Acme] Server on >= 1024 port James Cloos
Re: [Acme] Server on >= 1024 port Richard Barnes
Re: [Acme] Server on >= 1024 port Phillip Hallam-Baker
Re: [Acme] Server on >= 1024 port Peter Eckersley
Re: [Acme] Server on >= 1024 port James Cloos
Re: [Acme] Server on >= 1024 port Eric Rescorla
Re: [Acme] Server on >= 1024 port Niklas Keller
Re: [Acme] Server on >= 1024 port Randy Bush
Re: [Acme] Server on >= 1024 port Eric Mill
Re: [Acme] Server on >= 1024 port Darren J Moffat
Re: [Acme] Server on >= 1024 port Rob Stradling
Re: [Acme] Server on >= 1024 port Ángel González
Re: [Acme] Server on >= 1024 port Vincent Lynch