> Would like to see proposed wording, but the concept seems fine.
How about, changes marked:
Validation methods do not have to be compatible with ACME in order to be
registered. For example, a CA might wish to register a validation method in
order to support its use with the ACME extensions to CAA
{{?I-D.ietf-acme-caa}}.
+ Validation methods beginning with the prefix "ca-" are reserved for CA-local
+ meaning and may not be registered.
I've changed from "nonacme-" to "ca-" because the validation-methods
registry states that non-ACME methods may be registered, so "nonacme-"
as a prefix is a little nonsensical. The core utility here is to provide
a CA-local naming prefix. I'm not picky on what the prefix is, though.
And the applicable clause in ACME-CAA becomes:
Where a CA supports both the "validationmethods" parameter and one or more
non-ACME challenge methods, it MUST assign identifiers to those methods. If
appropriate non-ACME identifiers are not present in the ACME Validation
Methods
IANA registry, the CA MUST use identifiers beginning with the string
"ca-", which are defined to have CA-specific meaning.
I think that about does it?
_______________________________________________
Acme mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/acme
