I'd argue that removing the challenge version numbers adds unnecessary complexity to the specification and any existing implementations going forward.
Existing servers and clients will need to have some kind of mapping from the draft names to the final un-versioned names and any protocol revisions going forward will need to know about both the versioned and un-versioned names so that they don't name a new version of a challenge using one of the draft version numbers, leading to existing implementations thinking an older version is actually being used. I agree dropping the version numbers is somewhat more aesthetically pleasing but I can't really see any actual technical reasons to do so, while keeping them seems like it'd save a lot of headaches down the road. On 03/13/2017 11:56 AM, Richard Barnes wrote: > I would prefer we stick with dropping the version number, just because > it's cleaner and the future is bigger than the past. > > > On Mar 13, 2017 2:27 PM, "Jacob Hoffman-Andrews" <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > Roland posted a PR tweaking the challenge names for the final RFC: > https://github.com/ietf-wg-acme/acme/pull/272 > <https://github.com/ietf-wg-acme/acme/pull/272>. > > This raised the question: What do we want the challenge names to be in > the final RFC? I think we've been assuming that "http-01" would become > "http" once the RFC is published. However, this does create a slightly > deployment headache, in that draft-compatible implementations have to > use one name, and RFC-compatible implementations have to use another, so > it's hard to test working code with the final names before the RFC is > really finalized. > > I don't have a strong opinion on this one way or another. What do folks > on this list think? > > _______________________________________________ > 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 > -- Roland Bracewell Shoemaker Software Engineer Linux Foundation / Internet Security Research Group _______________________________________________ Acme mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/acme
