> I think this sentence is a misuse of BCP 14 language, and "RECOMMENDED" is the right one to use here as something a step down from should.
Totally agreed, I'll make that change. > Maybe it's a matter of a missing reference in 3.1.2, although I think some text is needed. I'll work on making this clearer. Thanks, Q Misell ------------------------------ Any statements contained in this email are personal to the author and are not necessarily the statements of the company unless specifically stated. AS207960 Cyfyngedig, having a registered office at 13 Pen-y-lan Terrace, Caerdydd, Cymru, CF23 9EU, trading as Glauca Digital, is a company registered in Wales under № 12417574 <https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/12417574>, LEI 875500FXNCJPAPF3PD10. ICO register №: ZA782876 <https://ico.org.uk/ESDWebPages/Entry/ZA782876>. UK VAT №: GB378323867. EU VAT №: EU372013983. Turkish VAT №: 0861333524. South Korean VAT №: 522-80-03080. AS207960 Ewrop OÜ, having a registered office at Lääne-Viru maakond, Tapa vald, Porkuni küla, Lossi tn 1, 46001, trading as Glauca Digital, is a company registered in Estonia under № 16755226. Estonian VAT №: EE102625532. Glauca Digital and the Glauca logo are registered trademarks in the UK, under № UK00003718474 and № UK00003718468, respectively. On Tue, 19 Dec 2023 at 00:06, Watson Ladd <[email protected]> wrote: > I've read the document and have a few questions. > > In section 5 we say " A CA offering certificates to ".onion" > Special-Use Domain Names SHOULD strongly consider making their ACME > server available as a Tor hidden services." I think this sentence is > a misuse of BCP 14 language, and "RECOMMENDED" is the right one to use > here as something a step down from should > > Section 3.1.2 says that there are modifications to the http-01 > challenge, but I'm not sure what they are. Then in Section 8 we learn > the challenge would fail. I'm a bit confused what is intended here. I > think what's supposed to happen is there is text spelling out that > http-01 is an instance of methods described in the BR 3.2.2.4.18 > (https://cabforum.org/wp-content/uploads/CA-Browser-Forum-BR-v2.0.1.pdf), > and that now the CA goes and resolves the .onion, but I missed where > this got spelled out. Maybe it's a matter of a missing reference in > 3.1.2, although I think some text is needed. > > Sincerely, > Watson Ladd > > -- > Astra mortemque praestare gradatim >
_______________________________________________ Acme mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/acme
