2016-07-26 23:03 GMT+02:00 Richard Barnes <[email protected]>:

> Hey folks,
>
> At the IETF meeting, EKR pointed out the need to have a
> "pre-authorization" function in ACME, where the client can get
> authorization to issue for certain names without causing a certificate to
> be issued.  Having thought about this a bit on the way home from the
> meeting, I'd like to get some feedback on how to go about this.
>

Could you line out the reason for the need?

Thanks, Niklas


> As a starting point, consider the following options:
>
> Option 1: Add a "preAuth" flag to the application request/struct, such
> that if that flag is set, then the server will not issue a certificate once
> the application completes.  However, that would still require the client to
> send a CSR, which on the one hand is a hassle (unneeded public-key
> operations) and on the other hand, risks bad server implementations missing
> the flag and issuing anyway.
>
> Option 2: copy/paste the "new-authz" flow back into the spec.  However,
> that's a lot of spec machinery to re-import, and it doesn't allow the CA to
> express any sort of simplification due to multiple domain names, such as
> the "just validate the top-level domain" policy in the other thread that's
> going on right now.
>
> Given those trade-offs, I wonder if some sort of intermediate approach
> would be better.  The best thing that's come to me so far is to fork the
> application process:
>
> - Add an "identifiers" field to the application object
> - Each application MUST have exactly one of "csr" and "identifiers"
> - If "csr" is present, then do what's in the draft now
> - If "identifiers" is present, then do the same dance, but don't issue the
> certificate
>
> Does that sound sane to folks?  It still seems slightly gross to me,
> because of the switching based on the presence of fields.  Anyone have
> better ideas?
>
> Thanks,
> --Richard
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Acme mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/acme
>
>
_______________________________________________
Acme mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/acme

Reply via email to