messaging both lamps and acme working group as while rfc8657 what I
propose will make outside scope of ACME WG:
while RFC8657 uses allows non-acme CAs use self-defined validation
method with ca-xxx prefix, as CAs are already have binding
classification from allowed validation methods, I think its better to
giving a tag per those methods.
and if we do that it'd better extend current defined list like http to
BR method 18(agreed change on http v2) and 19(acme http-01) and dns to
mean method 7 (update txt record) but not sure about margeing other
similar challanges (like mail to txt and mail to CAA)
and it should mention how additional validation method CA/B forum might
add, but I don't have good idea unless calling number by itself but that
dangling point to external document doesn't sound good idea.
_______________________________________________
Acme mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/acme
