On Thu, Jul 6, 2017 at 11:57 AM, Salz, Rich <[email protected]> wrote:
> So let's see. Can we live with this? > > Create a spec-required registry for validation method names. > I share Hugo's concern about divergence here. Should we maybe just put these in the ACME challenge types registry? It is already Spec-Required. That would mean that not all of those values would be usable with ACME, but that doesn't seems very likely to lead to interop problems, since a sensible ACME server wouldn't offer the non-ACME ones. Or you could just add a column to indicate ACME / non-ACME. In any case, if we go down this path, I would suggest we change "non-acme" to "vendor", in order to signify "something that is not in the registry". > Do not reference CABF docs. > I don't understand the concern here. IETF document reference non-IETF docs all the time. This seems like useful context. > Change the CA sample names from A B to X Y or foo bar or this that or > whatever. > This is already in my PR. I updated the PR with the "vendor" stuff above: https://github.com/ietf-wg-acme/acme-caa/pull/2/commits/e40c9cb7cfdf34b6fd2b4e0017ae626105287f58 --Richard
_______________________________________________ Acme mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/acme
