These three (#164, #181, #185) have now been merged. On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 11:04 PM, Richard Barnes <[email protected]> wrote:
> One more, pretty trivial one, but throwing it out there in case people > have bike shed paint they want to use: > > #185 - Change 'url' field on OOB challenge to 'href' > https://github.com/ietf-wg-acme/acme/pull/185 > > I noticed as I was implementing the oob-01 challenge that in the current > spec, there are both "uri" and "url" fields, which seemed destined to lead > to confusion. So this PR changes the "url" field to "href", as in <a > href="...">. > > > On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 1:16 PM, Richard Barnes <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Hey all, >> >> Going through PRs today, trying to see where we can make progress. I've >> already merged several that seemed non-controversial [1]. There are two >> more where I think we have agreement, but I wanted to give people a few >> days to opine: >> >> --- >> #181 - Add a new-nonce endpoint >> https://github.com/ietf-wg-acme/acme/pull/181 >> >> This was proposed by Jacob as a resolution to the tension between nonces >> and cacheability (raised in #156). I also like this as a solution, so I >> went ahead and implemented it. >> >> --- >> #164 - Unparallelize signatures on key-change >> https://github.com/ietf-wg-acme/acme/pull/164 >> >> We've wandered a little bit in the discussion of this PR, but there seems >> to be agreement on the main points: >> * Use nested rather than parallel signatures >> * Use JWKs rather than thumbprints to represent the keys >> * Require the "url" parameter to be the same for both inner and outer JWSs >> * No requirement on the nonce parameter in the inner JWS >> >> The main remaining conflict is about the general question of whether we >> should represent accounts by key, URL, or both. That's a more general >> question than this PR, though, so I'm going to propose we go ahead and make >> the changes we've agreed on, and if we change the representation of >> accounts later, we can update this section to match. >> >> I've updated the PR to reflect the above agreements, and added a JWK >> equivalence test that I think should be agreeable to everyone. >> >> --- >> >> I would appreciate if people could take a quick look at these and >> thumbs-up/down. If I don't hear objections by mid-next-week, I'll go ahead >> and merge. >> >> --Richard >> >> [1] >> #163 - Make duplicate new-reg return 200 >> #166 - Clarify 'url' field processing >> #171 - Remove combinations array >> #175 - Remove certificates field from registration object >> #176 - Fix typos >> #178 - Fixes two typos not addressed by #176 >> #179 - Clarify "new-X" resources paragraph >> >> >
_______________________________________________ Acme mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/acme
