Hi Roman,
On 22/05/2020 15:54, Roman Danyliw wrote:
** Section 6.
-- Recommend explicitly naming the registries being updated
-- Per the challenge type, all of the fields in the registry aren't described
here
-- Per the challenge type, the text in Section 3 says that the challenge type is
"email-reply-00" (not "email-reply" as described here)
I recommend something like the following:
NEW:
6.1. Identifier Type
Per this document, a new type has been added to the "ACME Identifier Types" registry
defined in Section 9.7.7 of [RFC8555] with Label "email" and a Reference to this document.
6.2. Challenge Types
Per this document, a new entry have been added to the "ACME Validation Methods"
registry defined in Section 9.7.8 of [RFC8555]. This entry is as follows:
+-------------+-----------------+------+-----------+
| Label | Identifier Type | ACME | Reference |
+=============+=================+======+===========+
| email-reply-00 | email | Y | This document |
+-------------+-----------------+------+-----------+
Thank you for this. I've used some of your suggested text and kept some
of mine, where I think it was important.
** Section 7. Per "Any claims about the correctness or fitness-for-purpose of the email address must
be otherwise assured", I don't follow the intent of this text. For example, what is the
"correctness ... of the email address"? What is meant by "assurances"?
This was based on feedback from one of reviewers. It is basically saying
that issued ACME certificates don't vouch for anything other than "this
email seems to belong to the entity that requested it". Does this make
sense?
Best Regards,
Alexey
_______________________________________________
Acme mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/acme
