It seems simplest to me to just register "application/x-pem-file" with a pointer to RFC 7468.
RFC 6838 is a little unclear on what's required in this case, but it looks like the most would be an IETF document, in which I expect a small AD-sponsored draft would suffice. On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 4:37 PM, Daniel McCarney <[email protected]> wrote: > > This is a good point. Should we register x-pem-file as part of this RFC? > Or > > come up with a new, more specific media type, like > > application/pem-certificate-chain? > > Of the two options my vote would be for `application/pem-certificate-chain` > as > the better choice. > > > On Mon, Feb 13, 2017 at 4:51 PM, Jacob Hoffman-Andrews <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> >From the WGLC thread, Russ Housley said: >> >> > Section 6.4.2 says: >> > The default format of the certificate is PEM (application/x-pem-file) >> > as specified by [RFC7468]. ... The client may request other formats by >> > including an Accept header in its request. For example, the client >> > may use the media type application/pkix-cert to request the end- >> > entity certificate in DER format. >> > >> > RFC 7468 defines the textual encoding for certificates, but it does not >> define the application/x-pem-file media type. I cannot find a registration >> for the application/x-pem-file media type. >> >> This is a good point. Should we register x-pem-file as part of this RFC? >> Or come up with a new, more specific media type, like >> application/pem-certificate-chain? >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Acme mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/acme >> > > > _______________________________________________ > Acme mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/acme > >
_______________________________________________ Acme mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/acme
