I agree “” is better than “{}”.
-Tim From: Acme <acme-boun...@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Richard Barnes Sent: Wednesday, September 5, 2018 4:11 PM To: Jacob Hoffman-Andrews <j...@eff.org> Cc: Logan Widick <logan.wid...@gmail.com>; IETF ACME <acme@ietf.org> Subject: Re: [Acme] POST-as-GET payload contents On Wed, Sep 5, 2018 at 3:43 PM Jacob Hoffman-Andrews <j...@eff.org <mailto:j...@eff.org> > wrote: On 09/05/2018 12:39 PM, Richard Barnes wrote: > Using the same notation, I'm: > > 1) "" > 2) "urn:ietf:params:acme:get" > 99) "{}" Given that, I'm willing to compromise on "". I think the experience we had of almost implementing bugs with that approach was informative, but isn't decisive. Thanks for compromising. I agree that the interop stuff will cause some hiccups, but hopeful that rather than being a blocker for folks, it will create some pressure for JOSE libraries to interop better in this case. In any case, I'll update the PR to make extra clear that {payload: ""} is what's required. Anyone else have opinions before we consider this closed? --Richard
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ Acme mailing list Acme@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/acme
