On Sat, Aug 6, 2016 at 12:57 PM, Peter Bowen <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 2:52 PM, Richard Barnes <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hey all, > > > > I just posted several PRs implementing agreements from the IETF meeting. > > > > #161 - Drop the OOB challenge > > https://github.com/ietf-wg-acme/acme/pull/161 > > I'm interested in the rationale for dropping the OOB challenge. As it > stands, the OOB challenge can be used to indicate that a given domain > name (or namespace) is authorized. This would seem to have value for > existing CAs who want to offer some level of ACME compatibility but > might not be able to make the whole pure-ACME workflow operate in > their system. > Yeah, I noted this at the mic in IETF 96, and it just sort of got shrugs on both sides. I don't think anyone is calling real strongly for it to be pulled out, so if you think it's useful, I'm happy to leave it.
_______________________________________________ Acme mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/acme
