I agree that a serialization format (or set of formats) would need to be standardized. Related thread: https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/acme/current/msg01690.html
Sincerely, Logan Widick On Wed, Jan 3, 2018 at 5:07 PM, Jörn Heissler <acme-sp...@joern.heissler.de> wrote: > Hello and happy new Year! > > I've found an inaccuracy in the ACME specs. > > https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7515#section-7 states: > > Applications using this specification need to specify what > serialization > and serialization features are used for that application. > > Although this is neither a "SHOULD" nor a "MUST", I think ACME should > specify > which serialization formats need to be supported by server implementations. > > RFC7515 defines four serialization formats: > > * JWS Compact Serialization > * General JWS JSON Serialization Syntax > * One signature only > * Multiple signatures > * Flattened JWS JSON Serialization Syntax > > https://ietf-wg-acme.github.io/acme/draft-ietf-acme-acme. > html#rfc.section.6.2 > states: > > In the examples below, JWS objects are shown in the JSON or > flattened JSON serialization > > All examples in the ACME specification use only the flattened > serialization. > Depending on the clarification above, this might need to be amended too. > > Best regards > Jörn Heissler > > _______________________________________________ > Acme mailing list > Acme@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/acme > >
_______________________________________________ Acme mailing list Acme@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/acme
