Am 07.07.2017 um 07:10 schrieb Eliot Lear:
Just a caution that configuration for 2138 is not always straight
forward and in implementation and deployment sometimes has interactions
with other functions. I suggest that someone who really wants to do the
standardization here install a version
Am 07.07.2017 um 03:56 schrieb Alan Doherty:
At 09:40 06/07/2017 Thursday, Rene 'Renne' Bartsch, B.Sc. Informatics wrote:
You think there should be a proprietary plug-in for any combination of DNS-provider
<-> ACME-client?
not at all
(only mentioned plugin as many acme clients use
At 09:40 06/07/2017 Thursday, Rene 'Renne' Bartsch, B.Sc. Informatics wrote:
>You think there should be a proprietary plug-in for any combination of
>DNS-provider <-> ACME-client?
not at all
(only mentioned plugin as many acme clients use separately maintained plugins
for each/every challenge
So let's see. Can we live with this?
Create a spec-required registry for validation method names.
Do not reference CABF docs.
Change the CA sample names from A B to X Y or foo bar or this that or whatever.
___
Acme mailing list
Acme@ietf.org
On 7/6/17 10:40 AM, Rene 'Renne' Bartsch, B.Sc. Informatics wrote:
> You think there should be a proprietary plug-in for any combination of
> DNS-provider <-> ACME-client?
The best case would be RFC 2138, but that's not something that can be
enforced.
> Creating DNS challenges on the fly makes
> You think there should be a proprietary plug-in for any combination of DNS-
> provider <-> ACME-client?
The question is backwards.
Does there have to be an open standard for any DNS provider/ACME client?
There is an important distinction.
___
Acme
On 6 July 2017 at 20:07, Hugo Landau wrote:
> Vendor-assigned identifiers could be supported as such:
> vnd:example.com/custom-method
RFC 6648 explains why vendor-prefixes can be a bad idea. I think that
you should do as Yaron suggested and establish a registry. Set the