Re: [Acme] Allowable mailto contacts

2017-10-20 Thread Alexey Melnikov
Hi, On 19/10/2017 21:52, Logan Widick wrote: I was not involved with RFC 6068 in any way. However, from my understanding of the RFC, that subset ("mailto:us...@example.com ") might (roughly) look something like: 1. No hfields (that appears to be the RFC 6068 term for

Re: [Acme] Allowable mailto contacts

2017-10-19 Thread Richard Barnes
Good catch, Logan. Suggested fix: https://github.com/ietf-wg-acme/acme/pull/346 On Thu, Oct 19, 2017 at 4:52 PM, Logan Widick wrote: > I was not involved with RFC 6068 in any way. However, from my > understanding of the RFC, that subset ("mailto:us...@example.com;)

Re: [Acme] Allowable mailto contacts

2017-10-19 Thread Logan Widick
I was not involved with RFC 6068 in any way. However, from my understanding of the RFC, that subset ("mailto:us...@example.com;) might (roughly) look something like: 1. No hfields (that appears to be the RFC 6068 term for the query string and its parameters) are allowed (The spec doesn't appear to

Re: [Acme] Allowable mailto contacts

2017-10-19 Thread Jacob Hoffman-Andrews
On 10/19/2017 10:59 AM, Logan Widick wrote: > What portions of the "mailto" URI scheme (RFC 6068) must an ACME server > be able to accept as contacts? Good question. I think we'd like to specify the narrowest subset possible, i.e. "mailto:us...@example.com;. What would that look like in the

[Acme] Allowable mailto contacts

2017-10-19 Thread Logan Widick
All, What portions of the "mailto" URI scheme (RFC 6068) must an ACME server be able to accept as contacts? The examples I saw in the draft depict one-item "to" productions with no headers (e.g. "mailto:us...@example.com;), but I couldn't find further details on what is allowed and what is not.