On 01/24/2017 07:07 AM, Daniel McCarney wrote: > I've reviewed each and left comments or positive +1's in the form of > approved > Github reviews. > > I'm in favour of removing the SCT link relation. It's unnecessary and as > Richard pointed out, easy to add back if it turns out the other SCT delivery > mechanisms aren't sufficient for a concrete use-case. >
I'm fine losing this as LE doesn't plan on implementing it but I think there is a valid argument to keep it if any other CA plans on implementing ACME and CT but not embedding SCTs. That said if it does stay the language definitely needs to be reworked as it currently implies a certificate would only have a single SCT and provides no guidance to how a list of SCTs should be presented to the client/user from the endpoint. > > On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 5:46 PM, Jacob Hoffman-Andrews <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > In review, Rich pointed out that some of these are more substantive and > should be reviewed as such, so I broke them out into their own PRs: > > Remove SCT link relation. > https://github.com/ietf-wg-acme/acme/pull/234 > <https://github.com/ietf-wg-acme/acme/pull/234> > Specify multi-viewpoint validation. > https://github.com/ietf-wg-acme/acme/pull/239 > <https://github.com/ietf-wg-acme/acme/pull/239> > Specify server MAY follow HTTP redirects. > https://github.com/ietf-wg-acme/acme/pull/238 > <https://github.com/ietf-wg-acme/acme/pull/238> > > Note: the last one is more of a clarification of current behavior, since > HTTP already says "MAY" for redirects. But a lot of ACME implementers > have been surprised to hear that redirects are followed, so I think it's > important to clarify. > > On 01/19/2017 11:55 AM, Jacob Hoffman-Andrews wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > I did a top-to-bottom review of the spec to look for coherency (since > > we've changed a number of concepts), mistakes, and general > consistency. > > I filed several pull requests on GitHub: > > > > https://github.com/ietf-wg-acme/acme/pull/231 > <https://github.com/ietf-wg-acme/acme/pull/231> > > https://github.com/ietf-wg-acme/acme/pull/232 > <https://github.com/ietf-wg-acme/acme/pull/232> > > https://github.com/ietf-wg-acme/acme/pull/233 > <https://github.com/ietf-wg-acme/acme/pull/233> > > https://github.com/ietf-wg-acme/acme/pull/234 > <https://github.com/ietf-wg-acme/acme/pull/234> > > https://github.com/ietf-wg-acme/acme/pull/235 > <https://github.com/ietf-wg-acme/acme/pull/235> > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Acme mailing list > > [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/acme > <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/acme> > > > > _______________________________________________ > Acme mailing list > [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/acme > <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
