Good catch, Logan. Suggested fix: https://github.com/ietf-wg-acme/acme/pull/346
On Thu, Oct 19, 2017 at 4:52 PM, Logan Widick <[email protected]> wrote: > I was not involved with RFC 6068 in any way. However, from my > understanding of the RFC, that subset ("mailto:[email protected]";) might > (roughly) look something like: > 1. No hfields (that appears to be the RFC 6068 term for the query string > and its parameters) are allowed (The spec doesn't appear to have a fragment) > 2. Only one e-mail address per mailto contact > > Or at least that is how I would understand the constraints. > > Sincerely, > > Logan Widick > > > On Oct 19, 2017 3:20 PM, "Jacob Hoffman-Andrews" <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 10/19/2017 10:59 AM, Logan Widick wrote: > > What portions of the "mailto" URI scheme (RFC 6068) must an ACME server > > be able to accept as contacts? > > Good question. I think we'd like to specify the narrowest subset > possible, i.e. "mailto:[email protected]";. What would that look like in > the language of RFC 6068? > > _______________________________________________ > Acme mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/acme > > > > _______________________________________________ > Acme mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/acme > >
_______________________________________________ Acme mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/acme
