Aaron Gable <aaron=40letsencrypt....@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
    > 1) Getting client to recheck ARI quickly and regularly

    > This is tracked as https://github.com/aarongable/draft-acme-ari/issues/13

    > The -01 ARI draft specifies that ARI responses must come with a
    > `Retry-After` header, and that clients should check ARI again after the
    > Retry-After period has passed. This matches the semantics of the
    > Retry-After header as specified in RFC7231.

Agreed.

    > However, this does nothing to suggest that the client should check in 
again
    > as soon as possible after the retry-after period has passed. For example, 
a
    > cron-based ACME client that wakes up once every 24 hours would be fully
    > compliant with an ACME server whose Retry-After header specifies 6 hours.

    > We would like to have the document specify that clients should check in on
    > a regular, server-controlled basis. The ideas we've had so far are:

I'm not quite clear how this can affect the once-every-24-hours crontab problem.
Is it your contention that this behaviour would change?
Would the client wake up once-every-24hours, and then wait?  or that the
crontab situation would change/go-away?

    > a) Include a "next check-in window" in the renewalInfo response, alongside
    > the existing suggestedWindow

How big would these windows be?

    > b) Include a "polling period" in the server's directory (either by making
    > the new `renewalInfo` key map to an object with both the base url and the
    > polling period; or by including it as a new key in the directory's meta
    > object)

I'm not sure I understand this option.

    > c) Another header? Is there another HTTP header that provides the 
semantics
    > we want?

I don't think so.

    > d) Leave it as-in, and just specify that the client should check in within
    > a certain amount of time after the Retry-After header.

    > I'm currently leaning towards (b), including the polling period in the 
ACME
    > directory meta section, but am open to other ideas and discussion.

That seems reasonable.


--
Michael Richardson <mcr+i...@sandelman.ca>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-



Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

_______________________________________________
Acme mailing list
Acme@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/acme

Reply via email to