On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 4:47 PM, Roland Shoemaker <rol...@letsencrypt.org> wrote:
> As previously discussed on the list the two property names defined in > draft-ietf-acme-caa, "validation-methods” and "account-uri”, do not conform > to the ABNF syntax in RFC 6844 as they contain hyphens. 6844-bis fixes this > by expanding the ABNF to be less restrictive but for now this doesn’t > really address the problem at hand. > > Given it is probably unlikely that 6844-bis will be standardized any time > soon is there any plan to make changes to draft-ietf-acme-caa to address > this in the short term? Given we are not yet at the point where there is > wide deployment/adoption of this feature can we take the easy route and > simply remove the hyphens so that the document at least complies with the > existing CAA document? > It is not just that -bis would need to be finalized and standardized, but that CAs would also have to adopt and recognize the syntax in -bis, updating their 6844 implementations. Even if -bis were final tomorrow, that would still take considerable time, given the normative differences, and so I think aligning on an inter-operable expression is certainly preferable, allowing it to work with both 6844 and -bis.
_______________________________________________ Acme mailing list Acme@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/acme
