Hi Ilari, Unfortunately, the situation is even more grave than allowing 0-length whitespace delimiters, as section 3 and section 5.2 of RFC 6844 contradict each other in regard to the delimiter (section 3 specifies the parameter delimiter as a semicolon, whereas in section 5.2 it's "0 or more whitespace characters"). This was pointed out in erratum 5200 (https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid5200). These layers of brokenness lead me to believe that no one should be specifying multiple parameters in issue/issuewild records until these issues are corrected in 6844-bis, lest they might experience incompatibilities between CAA record handling implementations.
Thanks, Corey Bonnell Senior Software Engineer Trustwave | SMART SECURITY ON DEMAND www.trustwave.com <http://www.trustwave.com/> On 7/17/18, 11:38 AM, "Acme on behalf of Ilari Liusvaara" <acme-boun...@ietf.org on behalf of ilariliusva...@welho.com> wrote: On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 01:25:51PM +0000, Salz, Rich wrote: > Ilari, > > That is a very impressive discussion of the issues, and examples. Thank you very much! > > So, what should the WG do with the CAA challenge document? I think either: - Change reference to RFC6844bis. - Fix examples (and other text) to be consistent with the RFC6844 grammar (which pretty obviously splits on space/tab according to the grammar). -Ilari _______________________________________________ Acme mailing list Acme@ietf.org https://scanmail.trustwave.com/?c=4062&d=_Y3O2yMmFUlzwyE4YBLSgZbkB1nVwb8L7Z2YF_UTJg&s=5&u=https%3a%2f%2fwww%2eietf%2eorg%2fmailman%2flistinfo%2facme _______________________________________________ Acme mailing list Acme@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/acme
