Here's my proposal that removes the STAR special-casing in ACME, making certificate URLs behave the same way as all other fetchable resources: https://github.com/ietf-wg-acme/acme/pull/459.

Sticking STAR concerns into the ACME draft so late in ACME development is only going to cause issues. At the point, we need to be locking things down and removing unused features, not introducing new fiddly bits for the sake of drafts that can easily be implemented as an extension to the main draft.

On 10/05/2018 03:55 PM, Jacob Hoffman-Andrews wrote:
>The removed language is a non-normative statement of fact

You can't introduce a new authentication method in post-Last Call revisions, and claim they are non-significant simply because they are not formally normative.

> It seems like you're trying to get rid of a better option to maintain the appearance architectural purity.

Nope, this is not a matter of architectural purity. Capability URLs are a strictly weaker authentication method than the JWS-based POSTs used everywhere in the protocol. If you read the doc (https://www.w3.org/TR/capability-urls/), it's all about the risks involved and how they should only be used as a last resort. The language we had up to draft 13 made this very explicit: GETs are not authenticated.

It seems like this was introduced in response to the STAR group requesting that final certificates be made GETtable. This was a pretty tenuous claim anyhow: If most ACME servers require POST for certificates, STAR-shaped clients won't be able to interoperate with them. So if you feel like STAR needs some special way to authenticate GETs, with lower security requirements than ACME, let's punt that to the STAR spec. Certificate GETs in ACME can be a MUST POST like everything else, and STAR can declare a "gettable certificate" extension.


_______________________________________________
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