> Sorry, the document still not update in “Registration Objects”, still same as Contact.
Hi Andy, Are you sure you're looking at the most-up-to-date commit[0] of that pull-request? I see: > external_secret (optional, string): : A secret value that the server can use to authenticate this registration as belonging to the same entity as an already-existing system. - Daniel/cpu [0] https://github.com/jsha/acme/blob/b32b2087c78f1a6a55b339cdcbcf111bab94fc27/draft-ietf-acme-acme.md On Sun, Aug 21, 2016 at 9:54 PM, Andy Ligg <[email protected]> wrote: > Sorry, the document still not update in “Registration Objects”, still same > as Contact. > > > > contact (optional, array of string): : An array of URIs that the server > can use to contact the client for issues related to this authorization. For > example, the server may wish to notify the client about server-initiated > revocation. > > external_secret (optional, string): : An array of URIs that the server can > use to contact the client for issues related to this authorization. For > example, the server may wish to notify the client about server-initiated > revocation. > > > > > > Best Regards, > > > > Andy > > > > *From:* Daniel McCarney [mailto:[email protected]] > *Sent:* Friday, August 19, 2016 11:30 PM > *To:* Andy Ligg <[email protected]> > *Cc:* Jacob Hoffman-Andrews <[email protected]>; [email protected] > *Subject:* Re: [Acme] Add an external secret field to registration > > > > > We checked the draft that the external_secret (optional, string) > description is same as Contact. > > This was fixed: https://github.com/ietf-wg-acme/acme/pull/172# > discussion_r75344194 > > > > On Fri, Aug 19, 2016 at 7:26 AM, Andy Ligg <[email protected]> wrote: > > We checked the draft that the external_secret (optional, string) > description is same as Contact. > > Another issue we think is how to guarantee this token's security, we plan > to limit this token that it will expire at the short time. Please advise, > thanks. > > Regards, > > Andy > > > > On 18 Aug 2016, at 08:58, Jacob Hoffman-Andrews <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Here's one version of what it might look like to add the token Andy > > proposed: > > > > https://github.com/ietf-wg-acme/acme/pull/172 > > > > Let me know what you think! > > _______________________________________________ > Acme mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/acme > > >
_______________________________________________ Acme mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/acme
