On Sat, Aug 14, 2021 at 6:18 PM Brian Sipos wrote:
> Does it seems like it's at all reasonable, from the perspective of the
> security area and focus on PKIX (documents and tools), for an application
> profile like this to say to conform to "... RFC 5280 with the exception of
> the
All,
I understand more fully now that the RFC5280 definition for
uniformResourceIdentifier has a more specific purpose than as a general URI
container, and that existing tools likely have additional assumptions baked
in about what services the URIs are to be used for. I was really hoping
that the
Roman,
My replies regarding the other, editorial comments are below with the
prefix "BS:". I'll get back to the earlier topics in the other mail thread.
** Section 1. Editorial. The paragraph starting with "Once an ACME
server validates ..." jumps immediately into discussion a "uri"
without
Roman:
I think that DTN would conform with RFC 5280 and with RFC 3986 if it used one
slash instead of two slashes. Is that a smaller revision than other that have
been discussed?
Russ
> On Aug 13, 2021, at 6:59 PM, Roman Danyliw wrote:
>
> Hi Ryan!
>
>
> From: Ryan Sleevi
I completely agree with Ryan.
* Do not touch 5280 as there will be too many competing interests to
improve it and interop will be broken or the bis version will be ignored.
(Years ago I wanted to re-open PKIX and I learned what a bad idea that is, and
I became ACME co-chair instead.)
*
