Subject: [Acme] Example requests

From: Jörn Heissler <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 4 Mar 2018 22:36:23 +0100

Hello,

I'm not sure if this should be included, so not making a PR yet.

Complete examples for requests may help implementers (of both servers
and clients) to understand the specifications. All existing examples
have pseudo-code like base64url({...}) and no untruncated keys or
signatures.

I wrote two examples, one for account creation, another for key
roll-over to demonstrate nested JWS:

https://github.com/joernheissler/acme/commit/a8a303ddbe3280b49ce8f10508dcdf95a6dc6de9

That commit also adds "--- back" (Backmatter to get Appendices in the
rendered document) and I'm not happy with the wording on top.

To check correctness of the signatures and make the requests
human-readable, I also wrote a small test program:

https://gist.github.com/joernheissler/04d9dcfb3a99e318871e451c9043f2dc

Do you think those examples should be included? And if so, is there any
time left to actually do it?

Cheers
Joern Heissler

---

From: Richard Barnes <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 4 Mar 2018 17:17:50 -0500

Hey Joern,

This is a probably a good thing to have.  I think that rather than putting
these in the main spec, it might be better to have them in a second draft.
This is a pretty common pattern.  For example, for TLS 1.3, there's a "test
vectors" document separate from the main spec [0].  There are a few
documents with example "call flows" for SIP [1][2].  ACME is probably
somewhere in the middle of those two cases.

--Richard

[0] https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-tls-tls13-vectors-03
[1] https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3665
[2] https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5589

On Sun, Mar 4, 2018 at 4:36 PM, Jörn Heissler <[email-masked]>
wrote:

> _______________________________________________
> Acme mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/acme
>
>

---

From: Jacob Hoffman-Andrews <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2018 14:23:36 -0800

On 03/04/2018 02:17 PM, Richard Barnes wrote:

> Hey Joern,
>
> This is a probably a good thing to have.  I think that rather than
> putting these in the main spec, it might be better to have them in a
> second draft.  This is a pretty common pattern.  For example, for TLS
> 1.3, there's a "test vectors" document separate from the main spec
> [0].  There are a few documents with example "call flows" for SIP
> [1][2].  ACME is probably somewhere in the middle of those two cases.
I agree; the test vectors are a good idea, and should be part of another
document.