> On Thu, Jul 6, 2017 at 11:57 AM, Salz, Rich <[1]rs...@akamai.com> 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". In this case we may as well keep it called "acme-methods" and leave the extension of that namespace (ACME challenge method names) to non-ACME things to the future.
_______________________________________________ Acme mailing list Acme@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/acme
