I agree with Ted that generic URI support should be documented but that mailto should be the only one explicitly referred to.
This was the intention of the original ticket I filled, although maybe not as coherently. On Jul 28, 2016, 3:17 PM -0700, Ted Hardie <[email protected]>, wrote: > Hi Richard > > On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 2:42 PM, Richard Barnes <[email protected] > (mailto:[email protected])> wrote: > > Roland filed an issue proposing removal of any URIs other than "mailto:";. > > > > https://github.com/ietf-wg-acme/acme/issues/159 > > > I think there is another way to look at the issue. Rather than focusing on > removing PSTN, you could say that he is requesting that mailto: be > universally supported, where other URI forms would be at the discretion of > the CA. > > Put that way, I think it's worth consideration. If there is a single contact > method that ACME requires, mailto makes sense. > > I really strongly disagree with this. At the level of this protocol, we > > should allow clients to specify whatever types of contact they want, as > > long as it can be specified in a URI. > > > > A data URI could have instructions on where to show up as a series of > navigational cues, so "can be specified in a URI" may not be enough. > > Ted > > > I would be willing to have some text that explicitly allows the server to > > filter the contact list, though, so that it's clear to the client what the > > server does and doesn't support. > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Acme mailing list > > [email protected] (mailto:[email protected]) > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/acme > > > > _______________________________________________ > Acme mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/acme
_______________________________________________ Acme mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/acme
