Re: [Acme] FW: [ietf-wg-acme/acme] Add a meta flag to indicate when GET requests for certificates are allowed (#462)

Thanks for clarifying. On Mon, Oct 8, 2018 at 10:58 AM Salz, Rich wrote: > >- No, because GET+capability > GET. If you're going to have GET at >all, you should have GET+capability > > > > And more importantly, you do not HAVE to do it; the text just has pointers > on how to do it if des

Re: [Acme] FW: [ietf-wg-acme/acme] Add a meta flag to indicate when GET requests for certificates are allowed (#462)

> https://github.com/ietf-wg-acme/acme/pull/462

Re: [Acme] Allow get for certificates?

The POST-as-GET mess started because Adam Roach pointed out that the "orders" URL (listing all of an accounts orders), in some non-WebPKI contexts, could expose information that shouldn't be exposed. There are two possible fixes for this: The narrow fix -- Remove "orders." No one implements it

Re: [Acme] FW: [ietf-wg-acme/acme] Add a meta flag to indicate when GET requests for certificates are allowed (#462)

* No, because GET+capability > GET. If you're going to have GET at all, you should have GET+capability And more importantly, you do not HAVE to do it; the text just has pointers on how to do it if desired. ___ Acme mailing list Acme@ietf.org https

Re: [Acme] FW: [ietf-wg-acme/acme] Add a meta flag to indicate when GET requests for certificates are allowed (#462)

No, because GET+capability > GET. If you're going to have GET at all, you should have GET+capability. On Mon, Oct 8, 2018 at 12:43 PM Eric Rescorla wrote: > My question is whether you would remove the text that JSHA was objecting > to about capabilities URLs. > > On Mon, Oct 8, 2018 at 6:31 AM

Re: [Acme] FW: [ietf-wg-acme/acme] Add a meta flag to indicate when GET requests for certificates are allowed (#462)

My question is whether you would remove the text that JSHA was objecting to about capabilities URLs. On Mon, Oct 8, 2018 at 6:31 AM Richard Barnes wrote: > Not sure which existing text you're referring to. No conflict comes to > mind. > > In particular, this seems compatible with the stuff in #

Re: [Acme] FW: [ietf-wg-acme/acme] Add a meta flag to indicate when GET requests for certificates are allowed (#462)

Not sure which existing text you're referring to. No conflict comes to mind. In particular, this seems compatible with the stuff in #post-as-get about how the server indicates that it doesn't allow GET. The model I have in mind is that this flag indicates that it's reasonable for the client to t

Re: [Acme] FW: [ietf-wg-acme/acme] Add a meta flag to indicate when GET requests for certificates are allowed (#462)

Speaking as an individual. Just to be clear, this change would be expected to coexist with the existing capabilities text? Richard, does it require that we retain that text? -Ekr On Sun, Oct 7, 2018 at 4:37 PM Salz, Rich wrote: > WG, this PR adds a new optional indicator that GET can be used

Re: [Acme] Allow get for certificates?

The 10/08/2018 09:49, Yaron Sheffer wrote: > IMO Richard's proposal is too coarse, in the sense that servers may want to > publish some certificates with GET and others with POST-as-GET. So either > this should not be a server-wide flag, or if it is, it should be augmented > by a per-Order flag whe