J.C. Jones <ietf@insufficient.coffee> wrote:
> Hence, I propose we add an optional field to the ARI response
> structure, "explanationURL", which when populated should be presented
> in any user-visible context (logging, alerting, etc) by the
> ARI-compatible client. It would be up to the Certificate Authority to
> ensure the URL presented appropriately translated information for the
> operator, and the CA _should_ only provide the field if there was
> something exceptional that warranted additional explanation or
> context.
Sounds good.
If it's for human consumption, then it might need to be an array or dict,
with per-language versions.
--
Michael Richardson <mcr+i...@sandelman.ca> . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Acme mailing list Acme@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/acme
