On Tue, 2013-04-09 at 11:18 -0400, Dmitri Pal wrote:
> On 04/09/2013 10:19 AM, Simo Sorce wrote:
> > On Tue, 2013-04-09 at 16:02 +0200, Martin Kosek wrote:
> >> On 04/08/2013 05:09 PM, Martin Kosek wrote:
> >>> On 04/08/2013 03:47 PM, Dmitri Pal wrote:
> >>>> On 04/08/2013 08:42 AM, Martin Kosek wrote:
> >>>>> On 04/08/2013 10:48 AM, Jan Cholasta wrote:
> >>>>>> On 8.4.2013 10:47, Jan Cholasta wrote:
> >>>>>>> Hi,
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> this patch fixes <https://fedorahosted.org/freeipa/ticket/3552>.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Honza
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> Re-sending with correct subject.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> I tested the change both for upgrades and for fresh installs and it 
> >>>>> worked fine
> >>>>> both cases, even when testing with Firefox enforcing mode.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> So far, as the biggest issue in current process I see NSS not being 
> >>>>> able to
> >>>>> fallback to other defined OCSP responder (I tested with Firefox 20). 
> >>>>> This way,
> >>>>> Firefox will fail validating the FreeIPA site when the first tested OCSP
> >>>>> responder is not available (e.g. the original IPA CA signing the http 
> >>>>> cert, or
> >>>>> an `ipa-ca.$domain` host that is currently not up).
> >>>> Have we filed a ticket with FF?
> >>> AFAIU, this is rather NSS issue, that Firefox issue. There is a bug open 
> >>> for NSS:
> >>> https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=797815
> >>>
> >>> Rob seems to have more context about this bug background.
> >>>
> >>> Martin
> >>>
> >> We may want to wait with pushing this patch until we get some response in 
> >> the
> >> NSS Bugzilla above. If our request is rejected, we may be forced to use 
> >> just a
> >> single CRL/OCSP (which would be probably the general one) and thus 
> >> supersede
> >> patch 123.
> > Well it will have to depend on when you create certs.
> > The first IPA server own cert should probably point at the ipa server
> > name. Then we should warn in bold letters that the user should create
> > such and such a DNS name if they did not let IPA handle DNS.
> >
> > If we can handle DNS then any other use can refer to the common name
> > which can be an A name with multiple entries (each IPA CA server should
> > be listed there by default and the record should be changed at ca
> > replicas install/decommission time, however we should allow admins to
> > add/remove names as well manually in case they want to add proxies otr
> > conceal some of the CA servers.
> >
> > We may also want to change the RA client code to use that record to
> > fetch certs.
> >
> > Simo.
> >
> I see a lot of RFEs in this comment.
> Are we going to file them?

We'll see how NSS is going to respond to the ticket, and then adjust
accordingly.

Simo.


-- 
Simo Sorce * Red Hat, Inc * New York

_______________________________________________
Freeipa-devel mailing list
Freeipa-devel@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/freeipa-devel

Reply via email to