Re: [Acme] AD Review: draft-ietf-acme-caa-05

[Hugo Landau <[e-mail]>]

> Would like to see proposed wording, but the concept seems fine.
How about, changes marked:

    Validation methods do not have to be compatible with ACME in order to be
    registered.  For example, a CA might wish to register a validation method in
    order to support its use with the ACME extensions to CAA
    {{?I-D.ietf-acme-caa}}.

+   Validation methods beginning with the prefix "ca-" are reserved for CA-local
+   meaning and may not be registered.

I've changed from "nonacme-" to "ca-" because the validation-methods
registry states that non-ACME methods may be registered, so "nonacme-"
as a prefix is a little nonsensical. The core utility here is to provide
a CA-local naming prefix. I'm not picky on what the prefix is, though.

And the applicable clause in ACME-CAA becomes:

    Where a CA supports both the "validationmethods" parameter and one or more
    non-ACME challenge methods, it MUST assign identifiers to those methods. If
    appropriate non-ACME identifiers are not present in the ACME Validation Methods
    IANA registry, the CA MUST use identifiers beginning with the string
    "ca-", which are defined to have CA-specific meaning.

I think that about does it?