>I'm going to retract my earlier proposal that we address this issue. While >the idea of better aligning the challenges is aesthetically appealing, there >seems to be agreement that there's not a major security issue here. And the >spec has already passed WGLC with the existing set of challenges.
> So I would propose that we close this issue and PR #312 ... If there is a > continued desire to do work here, a follow-on spec could define a harmonized > set of challenges. > Chairs: What say ye? Agree to defer this to a possible future version. Or, more simply, new challenges could be defined -- "now with more entropy" -- if there is a concern. _______________________________________________ Acme mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/acme
