+1 At 04:28 14/03/2017 Tuesday, Roland Shoemaker wrote: >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
_______________________________________________ Acme mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/acme
