On 04/09/2013 12:11 PM, Simo Sorce wrote: > 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. > > Well... time to adjust... accordingly ;-)
-- Thank you, Dmitri Pal Sr. Engineering Manager for IdM portfolio Red Hat Inc. ------------------------------- Looking to carve out IT costs? www.redhat.com/carveoutcosts/ _______________________________________________ Freeipa-devel mailing list [email protected] https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/freeipa-devel
