* Note that since the registration policy is "specification required",
doing this in an extension spec instead would not require the consent of the
IESG.
Right, which is how I prefer to see this move forward. Putting it into the
ACME doc, however, *does* require IESG approval.
* I
>
> As an individual, I dislike putting "here's what's wrong with your key" in
> the error message. For example, it encourages a thief to do "venue
> shopping" looking for a CA that will certify their stolen keypair.
>
I don't think this is a meaningful example. The server has to return some
kind
On Thu, Jan 24, 2019 at 10:52 AM Salz, Rich wrote:
> As WG co-chair, I am not thrilled with making this addition so very very
> late in the process. If the WG wants to do it, we'd need (a) clear
> consensus and (b) a quick approval from the IESG.
>
Note that since the registration policy is
As WG co-chair, I am not thrilled with making this addition so very very late
in the process. If the WG wants to do it, we'd need (a) clear consensus and
(b) a quick approval from the IESG.
As an individual, I dislike putting "here's what's wrong with your key" in the
error message. For
+1 - this seems like something we should have had already. Thanks for
catching & proposing the fix Rob.
On Thu, Jan 24, 2019 at 9:30 AM Richard Barnes wrote:
> This seems fine to me. It's basically just a table entry, with some
> description of how to use it.
>
> --Richard
>
> On Thu, Jan 24,
This seems fine to me. It's basically just a table entry, with some
description of how to use it.
--Richard
On Thu, Jan 24, 2019 at 9:26 AM Rob Stradling wrote:
> I realize it's very late for making non-editorial changes to
> draft-ietf-acme-acme, but I'd like to propose adding a new
