Hi Richard On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 2:42 PM, Richard Barnes <[email protected]> wrote:
> Roland filed an issue proposing removal of any URIs other than "mailto:";. > > > https://github.com/ietf-wg-acme/acme/issues/159 > > I think there is another way to look at the issue. Rather than focusing on removing PSTN, you could say that he is requesting that mailto: be universally supported, where other URI forms would be at the discretion of the CA. Put that way, I think it's worth consideration. If there is a single contact method that ACME requires, mailto makes sense. > I really strongly disagree with this. At the level of this protocol, we > should allow clients to specify whatever types of contact they want, as > long as it can be specified in a URI. > > A data URI could have instructions on where to show up as a series of navigational cues, so "can be specified in a URI" may not be enough. Ted I would be willing to have some text that explicitly allows the server to > filter the contact list, though, so that it's clear to the client what the > server does and doesn't support. > > _______________________________________________ > Acme mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/acme > >
_______________________________________________ Acme mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/acme
