> > 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.
I have no objections to using MUST over SHOULD. Updated in 5fcaa6c on my PR branch. - Daniel / cpu On Fri, Jan 5, 2018 at 4:24 PM, Richard Barnes <[email protected]> wrote: > 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
