[Acme] Adam Roach's Discuss on draft-ietf-acme-acme-14: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

2018-08-29 Thread Adam Roach
Adam Roach has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-acme-acme-14: Discuss When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer to

Re: [Acme] Alexey Melnikov's No Objection on draft-ietf-acme-acme-14: (with COMMENT)

2018-08-29 Thread Manger, James
>> base64url = [A-Z] / [a-z] / [0-9] / "-" / "_" > base64url = (%x40-5A) / (%x61-7A) / (%x30-39) / "-" / "_" “A” is %x41 (not %x40) -- James Manger ___ Acme mailing list Acme@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/acme

Re: [Acme] Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-ietf-acme-acme-14: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

2018-08-29 Thread Ben Campbell
> On Aug 29, 2018, at 8:10 PM, Richard Barnes wrote: > > > I am not an ART AD, but there is not yet an internationalization > directorate, and seeing statements like "inputs for digest computations > MUST be encoded using the UTF-8 character set" (Section 5) without > additional discussion of

Re: [Acme] Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-ietf-acme-acme-14: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

2018-08-29 Thread Richard Barnes
Hi Ben, Thanks for the detailed review. Responses to the DISCUSS comments inline. My co-author Daniel McCarney is working on the COMMENT comments. --Richard On Wed, Aug 29, 2018 at 2:53 PM Benjamin Kaduk wrote: > > It looks like the server returns an unauthenticated "badSignatureAlgorithm" >

Re: [Acme] Alexey Melnikov's No Objection on draft-ietf-acme-acme-14: (with COMMENT)

2018-08-29 Thread Alan Doherty
At 17:07 29/08/2018 Wednesday, Daniel McCarney wrote: >>Â I think SHOULD basically makes redirects non interoperable. I think a bit >>more text explaining why SHOULD or change this to MUST. Also, if there are >>some security issues related to redirects, adding a pointer here would be >>good. >

Re: [Acme] Alexey Melnikov's No Objection on draft-ietf-acme-acme-14: (with COMMENT)

2018-08-29 Thread Benjamin Kaduk
On Wed, Aug 29, 2018 at 04:55:09PM +, Salz, Rich wrote: > I read the link you posted, thanks. > > As long as we’re not breaking the HTTP spec, I agree that SHOULD seems to get > the most interop. As long as we’re getting signed reponses back, I don’t > think it matters much where the

[Acme] Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-ietf-acme-acme-14: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

2018-08-29 Thread Benjamin Kaduk
Benjamin Kaduk has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-acme-acme-14: Discuss When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer to

Re: [Acme] Alexey Melnikov's No Objection on draft-ietf-acme-acme-14: (with COMMENT)

2018-08-29 Thread Richard Barnes
I noticed that we already had some text in the security considerations about redirects, so I reverted to SHOULD and added a forward pointer. > More limited forms of delegation can also lead to an unintended > party gaining the ability to successfully complete a validation > transaction. For

Re: [Acme] Alexey Melnikov's No Objection on draft-ietf-acme-acme-14: (with COMMENT)

2018-08-29 Thread Salz, Rich
I read the link you posted, thanks. As long as we’re not breaking the HTTP spec, I agree that SHOULD seems to get the most interop. As long as we’re getting signed reponses back, I don’t think it matters much where the redirect sends you. ___ Acme

Re: [Acme] Ben Campbell's Yes on draft-ietf-acme-acme-14: (with COMMENT)

2018-08-29 Thread Ben Campbell
Thanks for the response! One clarification below: Ben. > On Aug 29, 2018, at 8:57 AM, Richard Barnes wrote: > [...] > > > *** Editorial and Nits *** > > > §10.2: " >It is RECOMMENDED that the server perform DNS queries and make HTTP >connections from various network

Re: [Acme] Alexey Melnikov's No Objection on draft-ietf-acme-acme-14: (with COMMENT)

2018-08-29 Thread Daniel McCarney
> > > I think SHOULD basically makes redirects non interoperable. I think a > bit more text explaining why SHOULD or change this to MUST. Also, if there > are some security issues related to redirects, adding a pointer here would > be good. > I'm slightly adverse to changing this to a MUST.

Re: [Acme] Alexey Melnikov's No Objection on draft-ietf-acme-acme-14: (with COMMENT)

2018-08-29 Thread Alexey Melnikov
Hi Richard, On 29/08/2018 16:03, Richard Barnes wrote: Hi Alexey, Thanks for the comments.  A couple of replies are below; resulting edits are in this PR: https://github.com/ietf-wg-acme/acme/pull/442 I deleted comments where we are in agreement. More comments below: --Richard On

Re: [Acme] Alexey Melnikov's No Objection on draft-ietf-acme-acme-14: (with COMMENT)

2018-08-29 Thread Richard Barnes
Hi Alexey, Thanks for the comments. A couple of replies are below; resulting edits are in this PR: https://github.com/ietf-wg-acme/acme/pull/442 --Richard On Wed, Aug 29, 2018 at 7:14 AM Alexey Melnikov wrote: > Alexey Melnikov has entered the following ballot position for >

Re: [Acme] Ben Campbell's Yes on draft-ietf-acme-acme-14: (with COMMENT)

2018-08-29 Thread Richard Barnes
Hi Ben, Thanks for the comments. A couple of replies are below; resulting edits are in this PR: https://github.com/ietf-wg-acme/acme/pull/441 --Richard On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 10:46 PM Ben Campbell wrote: > Ben Campbell has entered the following ballot position for >

[Acme] Alexey Melnikov's No Objection on draft-ietf-acme-acme-14: (with COMMENT)

2018-08-29 Thread Alexey Melnikov
Alexey Melnikov has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-acme-acme-14: No Objection When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer to