Why not a MUST? If you don't implement preauthorization, there's no need for a value. I guess you could provide "null", but ... don't.
On Fri, Jan 5, 2018 at 2:33 PM, Daniel McCarney <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 <[email protected]> > 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 > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/acme > >
_______________________________________________ Acme mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/acme
