Hey Joern, This is a probably a good thing to have. I think that rather than putting these in the main spec, it might be better to have them in a second draft. This is a pretty common pattern. For example, for TLS 1.3, there's a "test vectors" document separate from the main spec [0]. There are a few documents with example "call flows" for SIP [1][2]. ACME is probably somewhere in the middle of those two cases.
--Richard [0] https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-tls-tls13-vectors-03 [1] https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3665 [2] https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5589 On Sun, Mar 4, 2018 at 4:36 PM, Jörn Heissler <[email protected]> wrote: > Hello, > > I'm not sure if this should be included, so not making a PR yet. > > Complete examples for requests may help implementers (of both servers > and clients) to understand the specifications. All existing examples > have pseudo-code like base64url({...}) and no untruncated keys or > signatures. > > I wrote two examples, one for account creation, another for key > roll-over to demonstrate nested JWS: > > https://github.com/joernheissler/acme/commit/ > a8a303ddbe3280b49ce8f10508dcdf95a6dc6de9 > > That commit also adds "--- back" (Backmatter to get Appendices in the > rendered document) and I'm not happy with the wording on top. > > To check correctness of the signatures and make the requests > human-readable, I also wrote a small test program: > > https://gist.github.com/joernheissler/04d9dcfb3a99e318871e451c9043f2dc > > Do you think those examples should be included? And if so, is there any > time left to actually do it? > > Cheers > Joern Heissler > > _______________________________________________ > Acme mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/acme > >
_______________________________________________ Acme mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/acme
