Issue 29356716: Issue 4528 - Update StarSSL's timestamp URL (Closed)
|
Created:
Oct. 13, 2016, 8:17 p.m. by Oleksandr Modified:
Oct. 14, 2016, 6:13 p.m. Reviewers:
Felix Dahlke CC:
Eric, sergei Visibility:
Public. |
DescriptionIssue 4528 - Update StarSSL's timestamp URL
Patch Set 1 #Patch Set 2 : Use the Comodo timestamp URL #
Total comments: 4
MessagesTotal messages: 9
I think this deserves an issue, but otherwise LGTM. (I assume you tested it? Both URLs bring you to the same page in a browser at least.)
On 2016/10/14 05:20:18, Felix Dahlke wrote: > I think this deserves an issue, but otherwise LGTM. > > (I assume you tested it? Both URLs bring you to the same page in a browser at > least.) Actually NOT LGTM because I think we should use the Comodo timestamp URL, now that we are not with StartSSL anymore :) Seems to be this: http://timestamp.comodoca.com
Comodo URL worked fine as well.
LGTM!
https://codereview.adblockplus.org/29356716/diff/29357384/build_release.py File build_release.py (right): https://codereview.adblockplus.org/29356716/diff/29357384/build_release.py#ne... build_release.py:28: "/tr", "http://timestamp.comodoca.com" Just wonder, is there any difference between http://timestamp.comodoca.com/rfc3161 and http://timestamp.comodoca.com ?
https://codereview.adblockplus.org/29356716/diff/29357384/build_release.py File build_release.py (right): https://codereview.adblockplus.org/29356716/diff/29357384/build_release.py#ne... build_release.py:28: "/tr", "http://timestamp.comodoca.com" On 2016/10/14 14:57:58, sergei wrote: > Just wonder, is there any difference between > http://timestamp.comodoca.com/rfc3161 > and > http://timestamp.comodoca.com > ? The difference is in the company behind the URL. Since our certificate is from Comodo we would want to use their timestamp server as well. There is no sense in using another thirdparty timeserver for this, especially since it can change without us noticing, as we've witnessed. Other than that I think the protocol is the same.
https://codereview.adblockplus.org/29356716/diff/29357384/build_release.py File build_release.py (right): https://codereview.adblockplus.org/29356716/diff/29357384/build_release.py#ne... build_release.py:28: "/tr", "http://timestamp.comodoca.com" On 2016/10/14 17:08:16, Oleksandr wrote: > On 2016/10/14 14:57:58, sergei wrote: > > Just wonder, is there any difference between > > http://timestamp.comodoca.com/rfc3161 > > and > > http://timestamp.comodoca.com > > ? > > The difference is in the company behind the URL. Since our certificate is from > Comodo we would want to use their timestamp server as well. There is no sense in > using another thirdparty timeserver for this, especially since it can change > without us noticing, as we've witnessed. Other than that I think the protocol is > the same. My URLs are for the same company but in the first URL path is /rfc3161.
Message was sent while issue was closed.
https://codereview.adblockplus.org/29356716/diff/29357384/build_release.py File build_release.py (right): https://codereview.adblockplus.org/29356716/diff/29357384/build_release.py#ne... build_release.py:28: "/tr", "http://timestamp.comodoca.com" On 2016/10/14 17:53:09, sergei wrote: > On 2016/10/14 17:08:16, Oleksandr wrote: > > On 2016/10/14 14:57:58, sergei wrote: > > > Just wonder, is there any difference between > > > http://timestamp.comodoca.com/rfc3161 > > > and > > > http://timestamp.comodoca.com > > > ? > > > > The difference is in the company behind the URL. Since our certificate is from > > Comodo we would want to use their timestamp server as well. There is no sense > in > > using another thirdparty timeserver for this, especially since it can change > > without us noticing, as we've witnessed. Other than that I think the protocol > is > > the same. > My URLs are for the same company but in the first URL path is /rfc3161. Oh. Understood your question now. Where is the /rfc3161 coming from? I only see the one we use in the documentation. And it says that URL supports rfc3161. 
|
