>
> This sounds like you want to provide the order identifiers that
> triggered this authorization within the authorization object?


Generally speaking yes.

In principle, several order identifiers could lead to a single
> authorization I guess?
>

I think in principle that's true. ACME doesn't prescribe that there be a
single authorization per-identifier. Perhaps Wildcards are just the most
immediate case of there being a disconnect between the order identifiers
and the authorizations. I was thinking only of identifier value but you're
right that there may be a disconnect in the quantity of order
authorizations compared to requested identifiers.

It would be helpful if a CA with intentions to implement an issuance policy
that differs from "n order identifiers, n authorizations" would speak up.
I'm partial to the optional bool field because its very simple. Your
proposal is more robust but also a bigger change and I'd like to know
someone in the real world will benefit from the work involved :-)

- Daniel / cpu


On Fri, Mar 2, 2018 at 3:46 PM, Sophie Herold <sophie_her...@hemio.de>
wrote:

> On 02/03/18 18:32, Daniel McCarney wrote:
> > Richard: That's up to the client and the situation. In the linked Certbot
> > issues there were questions about error output/UX. In this case if the
> > client saw an error attached to an authorization with the identifier `{
> > "type": "dns", "value": "example.com"}` and the authorization had
> > `wildcard: true` the client could say "Failed to authorize *.example.com
> :
> > blah blah blah" or otherwise use the knowledge to inform their actions
> > (whatever they may be).
>
> This sounds like you want to provide the order identifiers that
> triggered this authorization within the authorization object?
>
> I think, in general it is just a guess that exmaple.com + wildcard means
> that the order contains *.example.com. This depends on which
> authorizations are created for which order identifiers, which is not
> specified by acme.
>
> In principle, several order identifiers could lead to a single
> authorization I guess? For example, if sub1.example.org and
> sub2.example.org lead to just an example.org authorization. Therefore
> "orderIdentifiers", as I call it here, needs to be a list:
>
>    {
>      "status": "valid",
>      "expires": "2015-03-01T14:09:00Z",
>
>      "identifier": {
>        "type": "dns",
>        "value": "example.org"
>      },
>
>      "orderIdentifiers": [
>        {
>          "type": "dns",
>          "value": "*.example.org"
>        }
>      ],
>
>      "challenges": [
>      …
>
> Best,
> Sophie
>
> _______________________________________________
> Acme mailing list
> Acme@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/acme
>
_______________________________________________
Acme mailing list
Acme@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/acme

Reply via email to