This works for me.
-Ekr
On Thu, Jan 3, 2019 at 11:33 AM Salz, Rich wrote:
> @ekr, is this okay with you?
>
> On 12/28/18, 10:30 PM, "Hugo Landau" wrote:
>
> On Sat, Dec 29, 2018 at 03:23:35AM +, Salz, Rich wrote:
> >
> > + Validation methods beginning with the prefix
@ekr, is this okay with you?
On 12/28/18, 10:30 PM, "Hugo Landau" wrote:
On Sat, Dec 29, 2018 at 03:23:35AM +, Salz, Rich wrote:
>
> + Validation methods beginning with the prefix "ca-" are reserved
for CA-local
> + meaning and may not be registered.
>
On Sat, Dec 29, 2018 at 03:23:35AM +, Salz, Rich wrote:
>
> + Validation methods beginning with the prefix "ca-" are reserved for
> CA-local
> + meaning and may not be registered.
>
> "need not be" ? Or "SHOULD NOT be" ?
My intention was that the rules of the registry state
+ Validation methods beginning with the prefix "ca-" are reserved for
CA-local
+ meaning and may not be registered.
"need not be" ? Or "SHOULD NOT be" ?
>I think that about does it?
Looks good to me.
___
Acme mailing list
> Would like to see proposed wording, but the concept seems fine.
How about, changes marked:
Validation methods do not have to be compatible with ACME in order to be
registered. For example, a CA might wish to register a validation method in
order to support its use with the ACME
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:
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
On Mon, Dec 3, 2018 at 6:26 PM Hugo Landau wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 04, 2018 at 07:18:05PM -0800, Eric Rescorla wrote:
> > IMPORTANT
> > S 4.
> > > Where a CA supports both the "validationmethods" parameter and
> one or
> > > more non-ACME challenge methods, it MUST assign identifiers to
>
On Sun, Nov 04, 2018 at 07:18:05PM -0800, Eric Rescorla wrote:
> IMPORTANT
> S 4.
> > Where a CA supports both the "validationmethods" parameter and one or
> > more non-ACME challenge methods, it MUST assign identifiers to those
> > methods. These identifiers MUST be chosen to
10 matches
Mail list logo
