Hi Ilari,

> This impiles that if pre-authorization is not supported, newAuthz better
> be absent (this is also useful for detecting pre-authorization support if
> the client can use it somehow).
> I think this should be at least a SHOULD.


You're right. My intention is to make the presence of that field an
indicator of pre-authorization support (or lack thereof). I'll update to a
SHOULD in my PR since I agree that maps better.

Thanks!



On Fri, Jan 5, 2018 at 2:27 PM, Ilari Liusvaara <ilariliusva...@welho.com>
wrote:

> On Fri, Jan 05, 2018 at 02:05:22PM -0500, Daniel McCarney wrote:
> > In Section 7.4.1 "Pre-Authorization" the spec says:
> >
> >  If a CA wishes to allow pre-authorization within ACME, it can offer
> > >  a "new authorization" resource in its directory by adding the field
> > >  "newAuthz" with a URL for the new authorization resource.
> >
> >
> > That text indicates that the CA may wish to *not* support
> pre-authorization
> > in which case the "newAuthz" resource will not be present in the
> directory.
> > E.g. the Let's Encrypt ACME v2 directory[0] does not include this
> resource.
> >
> > I think this should be further emphasized in Section 7.1.1 "Directory"
> > since this is where a developer is likely to look first when trying to
> > determine what directory fields can be assumed present.
> >
> > I opened a PR to add a small note about this to Section 7.1.1:
> > https://github.com/ietf-wg-acme/acme/pull/384
> >
> > This is perhaps a step past the line of being strictly editorial. I would
> > appreciate if anyone with objections raise them on-thread over the next
> few
> > days.
>
> Why MAY? If implementation does not support some functionality that an
> endpoint is exclusively for, it better omit that endpoint. This impiles
> that if pre-authorization is not supported, newAuthz better be absent
> (this is also useful for detecting pre-authorization support if the
> client can use it somehow).
>
> I think this should be at least a SHOULD.
>
>
>
> -Ilari
>
_______________________________________________
Acme mailing list
Acme@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/acme

Reply via email to