+1 for "MUST begin the issuance process" - thanks for the suggestion Jacob.

On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 2:44 PM, Zach Shepherd <[email protected]> wrote:

> I think "MUST begin the issuance process" addresses my concerns and is in
> line with the discussions around preferring "proactive" issuance.
>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* Jacob Hoffman-Andrews <[email protected]>
> *Sent:* Wednesday, March 22, 2017 10:13 AM
> *To:* [email protected]; Zach Shepherd
> *Cc:* [email protected]
> *Subject:* Re: [Acme] Use of "shortly" in normative language of Section
> 7.4, Applying for Certificate Issuance
>
> We could say "MUST begin the issuance process"
>
> The main things on my mind that could delay issuance slightly:
>  - Submitting to CT
>  - Checking CAA
>  - Internal queuing for available capacity
>  - Manual vetting
>
> I think "MUST begin" covers for all of those, while allowing some
> vagueness as to how long they will take.
>
> On 03/22/2017 09:39 AM, Daniel McCarney wrote:
>
> Hi Zach,
>
> For background I think this MUST originated out of this thread:
> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/acme/0lVmGl8e-rmSH0x7ycDW5dj6GAY
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mailarchive.ietf.org_arch_msg_acme_0lVmGl8e-2DrmSH0x7ycDW5dj6GAY&d=DwMD-g&c=uilaK90D4TOVoH58JNXRgQ&r=Z9jmRNJFc0_mrYgZ7k4FWDuC1AsqA1UJKUYIM6ZnnNk&m=IVegRoNI7i9NKYEzqcMfeK47xFPnnNPelVyrANn-ApQ&s=sangkBdLNhQ_KuubT2WqqFvFfy9gCNFcbWH5_NAutl4&e=>
>
>
> I would prefer option A) as well. It seems better to clear up the
> non-normative language than to step backwards to a place where proactive
> issuance may or may not happen without a clear signalling to the client of
> which a server will do.
>
> I think the use of "shortly" here is to allow the server some grace to
> determine that the order is completed and issuance can be performed.
> Perhaps we could change the language to say "The server MUST issue the
> requested certificate and update the order resource with a URL for the
> certificate after it has determined the client has fulfilled the server's
> requirements" and not impose any specific mention of the time between the
> client completing the challenges and the server noticing. Thoughts?
>
> On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 1:14 AM, Zach Shepherd <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>> The following feedback is based on 8010a31 (current HEAD of master).
>>
>> Section 7.4, Applying for Certificate Issuance, states "The server MUST
>> issue the requested certificate and update the order resource with a URL
>> for the certificate shortly after the client has fulfilled the server’s
>> requirements."
>>
>> Per RFC 2119 Section 6, the imperative MUST should be used with care and
>> sparingly.
>>
>> The use of "shortly" in the above sentence is imprecise. It is not
>> possible for a server author to know, with confidence, that they are
>> adhering to this requirement. It is not possible fore a client author to
>> make design or implementation decisions based on this requirement.
>>
>> I would propose either:
>> a) Replacing "shortly" with a more precise expectation.
>> b) Replacing "MUST" with "should".
>>
>> I believe there are advantages for setting expectations as to the
>> turn-around time for certificate issuance and would therefore prefer option
>> (a), assuming agreement could be reached on more precise language.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Zach Shepherd
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Acme mailing list
>> [email protected]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/acme
>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.ietf.org_mailman_listinfo_acme&d=DwMD-g&c=uilaK90D4TOVoH58JNXRgQ&r=Z9jmRNJFc0_mrYgZ7k4FWDuC1AsqA1UJKUYIM6ZnnNk&m=IVegRoNI7i9NKYEzqcMfeK47xFPnnNPelVyrANn-ApQ&s=0aKjhUeYQGvrvF_50ZzCMUIEt6uUg18yDmXhGuk5KRY&e=>
>>
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Acme mailing [email protected]https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/acme 
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.ietf.org_mailman_listinfo_acme&d=DwMD-g&c=uilaK90D4TOVoH58JNXRgQ&r=Z9jmRNJFc0_mrYgZ7k4FWDuC1AsqA1UJKUYIM6ZnnNk&m=IVegRoNI7i9NKYEzqcMfeK47xFPnnNPelVyrANn-ApQ&s=0aKjhUeYQGvrvF_50ZzCMUIEt6uUg18yDmXhGuk5KRY&e=>
>
>
>
_______________________________________________
Acme mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/acme

Reply via email to