> Am 13.02.2022 um 06:39 schrieb Benjamin Kaduk <[email protected]>:
>
> On Thu, Feb 10, 2022 at 02:31:15PM -0500, Michael Richardson wrote:
>>
>> J.C. Jones <[email protected]> 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.
Unnecessary. HTTP servers can redirect to language specific resources just
fine. Let's not i18n the protocol urls, please.
>
> Yes, BCP 18 has a few things to say on this matter.
>
> -Ben
>
> _______________________________________________
> Acme mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/acme
_______________________________________________
Acme mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/acme
