+1 agreed the acme client design (plugins/modules/supported server architectures etc) should really be down to the implementors/designers
as some smaller ones will only talk acme + http-01 + 1 specific server (say acme client built into server/device) others may offer many/all auth mechanisms and server architectures (and dns apis) the WG is realy concerned with the api (and CA server reactions (and expectation of responses) the myriad clients should handle the third side or the triangle client <--> acme-ca <----> client selected 3rd party client <-----out of scope-> client selected 3rd party (3rd party as the webserver or dns provider can be entirely separate) At 15:28 04/07/2017 Tuesday, Daniel McCarney wrote: >I agree with the others that have shared the opinion that this is outside of >the scope of ACME and this WG. > >In my opinion we shouldn't reinvent the wheel. With RFC 2138 (DynDNS) there is >already a protocol for clients to add/update/delete resource records on DNS >servers. Most DNS server softwares support RFC 2136 out of the box. We just >have to define a protocol to use (-> RFC 2136) in the ACME client. > > >That's exactly right. At least one ACME client (Certbot) has been working on >support for RFC 2136 >(<https://github.com/certbot/certbot/pull/4701>https://github.com/certbot/certbot/pull/4701) > in addition to one-off provider specific DNS APIs. > >If you need a generic way to update DNS dynamically RFC 2138 is it. If your >DNS provider doesn't support RFC 2136 it seems hard to imagine you could >convince them to adopt a newly invented ACME DNS update scheme. > >- cpu > >On Mon, Jul 3, 2017 at 12:46 PM, Rene 'Renne' Bartsch, B.Sc. Informatics ><<mailto:[email protected]>[email protected]> wrote: > > >Am 03.07.2017 um 18:28 schrieb Salz, Rich: >For a fully automated validation process the ACME-client needs some kind of >protocol/interface to add/update/remove the DNS challenge records on the >primare DNS server. > >This is out of scope for our WG, but since we are looking at rechartering, it >could be brought within scope. > >But I think programmatic maintenance of DNS records should probably be done >within the DNS groups. > > >In my opinion we shouldn't reinvent the wheel. With RFC 2138 (DynDNS) there is >already a protocol for clients to add/update/delete resource records on DNS >servers. Most DNS server softwares support RFC 2136 out of the box. We just >have to define a protocol to use (-> RFC 2136) in the ACME client. > > >_______________________________________________ >Acme mailing list ><mailto:[email protected]>[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
