Re: [Acme] Acme Digest, Vol 13, Issue 3

This a follow-on email with more specific comments on draft-ietf-acme-acme-01.txt: Couple of terminology points first. I note the use of the term TLS certificates throughout the draft. TLS also supports DTCP certificates (RFC 7562) is this format supported? If not, I suggest use of X.509

Re: [Acme] Acme Digest, Vol 13, Issue 3

I have just joined this mailing list, read the group charter, the messages over the last week or so (including the meeting report) and the WG draft-ietf-acme-acme-01.txt. I have not read the archives since I assume from the draft date that it reflects current thinking. My comments at this

[Acme] Adding an Extension to http-01 Answers

I'm implementing an ACME client for windows and have run into some trouble with IIS handling extensionless static files. I've described the problem on these two links. https://github.com/ebekker/letsencrypt-win/issues/15

Re: [Acme] Adding an Extension to http-01 Answers

At the meeting, we concluded that you would not have to include a specific MIME media type in responses. Serializing the octets of the base64-encoded string would be enough. Does that make your problem easier? On 10 November 2015 at 16:58, Bryan Livingston wrote: >

Re: [Acme] Adding an Extension to http-01 Answers

That flexibility is nice but doesn't fully solve the problem. It's not just the mime type that is causing a problem on windows & IIS. When ASP.net is installed there's a problem with it's handler eating all the extensionless requests. To fix it the user has to go into the IIS manager and change