Would like to see proposed wording, but the concept seems fine.
From: Eric Rescorla
Date: Saturday, December 22, 2018 at 12:26 PM
To: Hugo Landau
Cc: "acme@ietf.org"
Subject: Re: [Acme] AD Review: draft-ietf-acme-caa-05
This SGTM. ACME editors?
-Ekr
On Sat, Dec 22, 2018 at 8:28 AM Hugo
This SGTM. ACME editors?
-Ekr
On Sat, Dec 22, 2018 at 8:28 AM Hugo Landau wrote:
> > I'm open to alternative methods of preventing conflicts. A prefix could
> > > be reserved for CA-specific use, e.g. "nonacme-".
> > >
> >
> > That would be fine.
>
> Amended to:
>
> Where a CA supports both
> I'm open to alternative methods of preventing conflicts. A prefix could
> > be reserved for CA-specific use, e.g. "nonacme-".
> >
>
> That would be fine.
Amended to:
Where a CA supports both the "validationmethods" parameter and one or
more non-ACME challenge methods, it MUST assign
