Hi Rich!

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Salz, Rich <[email protected]>
> Sent: Tuesday, February 23, 2021 12:16 PM
> To: Roman Danyliw <[email protected]>; Yaron Sheffer <[email protected]>;
> IETF ACME <[email protected]>
> Subject: Re: [Acme] AD Review: draft-ietf-acme-star-delegation-04
> 
> > I appreciate this approach is additional work and pulls in another
> "technology" that isn't a natural fit in the ACME ecosystem.
> 
> I think using CDDL is a bad idea.  As you point out, it's not a natural fit.  
> I looked
> at Appendix B of RFC 8610, and while I *think* it would work, I'm not 
> positive.
> 
> None of the other ACME documents have used a schema and seem to be
> acceptable. If the WG authors really think a schema language is needed, I
> betcha they could craft ABNF or even ASN.1  (ISO X.697 if you need to go that
> far). Make Appendix B informative and change the second bullet in 5.6 to be "A
> description of the extension syntax." Beware of over-specifying.

I think there is a lot of flexibility on the modeling language.  There just 
needs to be something formally describing the langauge.   <No Hat>Whatever is 
done, I hope the existing schema stays in the document as I think it will be 
helpful to implementors.</No Hat>

> When JSON Schema finally becomes published, re-open ACME (heh:) and put
> out an "updates" document that makes everything like you want it to be.
>
> >Also, there are discussions
> > between the leaders of the JSON Schema effort and people on the
> >HTTP-API  working group, with the goal of standardizing it there.
>
> As a co-chair of that group I'll say that the HTTP-API group does not feel 
> json
> schema belongs there as we have too much work already and JSON isn't just
> about API's. My guess is it will end up in another group. Which will of course
> mean things take even longer.

Thanks for the update.  It seems like there is a need here.  I hope a home can 
be found.

Roman
_______________________________________________
Acme mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/acme

Reply via email to