Hi all,
The new RFC (8555) states (on p26), for order objects, that a 1:1
relationship may not exist between an order’s identifiers and its authzs.
Given that each authz object contains exactly 1 identifier, how would
this play out for CAs that accept authz against a base domain as substitutive
for authz on a subdomain?
Consider an order to the hypothetical “AwesomeSSL” CA for example.com
and www.example.com. AwesomeSSL considers authz against “example.com” to
implicitly demonstrate control over “www.example.com”. Since the order requires
successful authz for both domains, and (for AwesomeSSL) authz for “example.com”
suffices for both domains, having a separate authz against “www” is
superfluous. So it would be reasonable for this order to contain a single authz
… and would that authz’s identifier be just “example.com”, then? Thus that
authz object would not reference “www”, even though it is that domain’s
corresponding authz object? Or would a client be accountable for implementing a
“best-match authz” lookup to determine which authz corresponds to a given
domain?
Thank you!
-Felipe Gasper
Mississauga, Ontario
_______________________________________________
Acme mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/acme
