I support moving forward with the document.
However I think the treatment of the acme-methods (or
validation-methods) param is inconsistent, before and certainly after
Richard's PR. The original draft only allows ACME methods and the
special name "non-acme". This leaves the responsibility to ensure names
are well defined with the IETF.
If we allow mixing ACME methods with CA-defined methods per Richard's
proposal, we should make sure that there is no overlap. And even if
names are defined by individual CAs, the CA should provide a precise
definition of each validation method. IMO there are two good options:
- Define an IANA registry for the validation-methods values. (This is
simple enough, and would be my preference).
- Define an IANA registry for prefixes (such as "cabf" mentioned in
Richard's text) and specify that everything else must be defined by ACME.
Thanks,
Yaron
https://github.com/ietf-wg-acme/acme-caa/pull/2
On Wed, Jul 5, 2017 at 11:47 AM, Salz, Rich <rs...@akamai.com> wrote:
There's no listing going on here, since there's no registry for the
values. CABF could put tokens in their documents if they like.
Okay, please propose wording (or did you? Sorry if so) to change for the
CAA draft.
_______________________________________________
Acme mailing list
Acme@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/acme
