On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 1:32 PM, Jacob Hoffman-Andrews <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 09/27/2016 12:26 AM, Hugo Landau wrote: > > > > We should also consider allowing people to use URIs, or some sort of > > vendor-prefixed types for authorizations and challenges, to avoid > > collisions. e.g. "http://example.ca/account-funding-01"; or > > "vnd.exampleca.account-funding-01" or "ca.example.account-funding-01". > > This also makes sense. I think URIs make more sense, rather than > defining a new namespace. And the URIs can contain more information > about the type. What do other folks think? > > I'm a little confused about the proposal, especially how the URI would contain more information about the type. Would you mind fleshing this out a bit? thanks, Ted
_______________________________________________ Acme mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/acme
