On Jul 30, 2015, at 11:51 AM, Rob Austein <[email protected]> wrote: > > I prefer Richard's option 2 (allow but do not require linebreaks), > which is what RFC 6490 RP implementations had to support anyway. >
Richard’s option 2 allows insertion of line breaks in a TAL. Should we add a “Relying parties MUST ignore line breaks/whitespace” as well? Richard’s message agrees that everyone’s relying party code he’s looked at does that anyway. —Sandy
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
_______________________________________________ sidr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
