[pve-devel] applied: [PATCH acme v3 0/5] fix #4497: add support for external account bindings

[Thomas Lamprecht <t.lamprecht@proxmox.com>]

Am 31/10/2023 um 10:05 schrieb Folke Gleumes:
> Changes since v2:
>  * reverted the new_account abi to be non breaking
> 
> Changes since v1:
>  * fixed nit's
>  * expanded meta endpoint by all return values defined in the rfc
>  * expanded new_account signature by field for eab credentials
>  * allow for eab even if not required
> 
> This patch series adds functionality to use acme directiories
> that require the use of external account binding, as specified
> in rfc 8555 section 7.3.4.
> 
> To avoid code duplication and redundant calls to the CA,
> the `/cluster/acme/tos` endpoint has been deprecated and
> it's function will be covered by the new `/cluster/acme/meta`
> endpoint, which exposes all meta information provided by the CA,
> including the flag indicating that EAB needs to be used.
> The underlying call to the CA remains the same.
> 
> The CLI interface will only ask for the EAB credentials if needed,
> similar to how it works for the ToS.
> 
> The patches have been tested to work with and without EAB
> by using pebble [0] as the CA.
> 
> [0] https://github.com/letsencrypt/pebble
> 
> 
> acme: Folke Gleumes (1):
>   fix #4497: add support for external account bindings
> 
>  src/PVE/ACME.pm | 48 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------
>  1 file changed, 42 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
> 
> 
> manager: Folke Gleumes (4):
>   fix #4497: acme: add support for external account bindings
>   api/acme: deprecate tos endpoint in favor of meta
>   fix #4497: cli/acme: detect eab and ask for credentials
>   ui/acme: switch to new meta endpoint
> 
>  PVE/API2/ACMEAccount.pm   | 83 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
>  PVE/CLI/pvenode.pm        | 26 +++++++++++-
>  www/manager6/node/ACME.js | 12 ++++--
>  3 files changed, 113 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
> 


applied series with Fabian's R-b and T-b trailers, thanks!

But I commented w.r.t. return schema on patch 3/5, please check that out.

And some commits I'd have slightly favored a split the rework and addition
of new feature into two separate commits, like the proxmox-acme one, but no
biggie.