I'm also strongly in favour of this change. I think the minimal increase in
client
state/complexity is offset by the gain of knowing that the category of
potential
bugs that Jacob mentions are avoided.


On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 1:01 AM, Martin Thomson <[email protected]>
wrote:

> I am inclined to think that this is a good change, on the basis that
> it means that the server is minting the identifiers that the client
> uses.  I think that Jacob is probably understating the potential for
> bugs here.  And key canonicalization is a bad smell.
>
> On 27 September 2016 at 14:51, Jacob Hoffman-Andrews <[email protected]> wrote:
> > I understand the concern, but I think that clients already have to store
> > a significant amount of state: the ACME directory URL, the private key,
> > and the domain names, certificates, and private keys of existing
> > certificates. I think that one more item, the account URL, is not a
> > heavy burden, especially when weighed against a real flaw in the
> > protocol. You could consider it akin to storing a username and password
> > for a more traditional login.
> >
> > All that said, for clients that find it to be a big savings, there is
> > always the method of finding the account URL by POSTing again to new-reg
> > with the same key.
> >
> > On 09/24/2016 06:16 PM, Hugo Landau wrote:
> >> I'm somewhat against this on the grounds that it introduces unnecessary
> >> state into clients (the registration URI), increasing their complexity.
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Acme mailing list
> >> [email protected]
> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/acme
> >>
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Acme mailing list
> > [email protected]
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/acme
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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