IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Acme] Benjamin Kaduk's No Objection on draft-ietf-acme-caa-09: (with COMMENT)

Hugo Landau <hlandau@devever.net> Thu, 20 June 2019 20:52 UTC

Return-Path: <hlandau@devever.net>
X-Original-To: acme@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: acme@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0D79B1201CC; Thu, 20 Jun 2019 13:52:46 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=devever.net
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id evG-_is4YMTT; Thu, 20 Jun 2019 13:52:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from umbriel.devever.net (umbriel.devever.net [149.202.51.241]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CA3C91201E4; Thu, 20 Jun 2019 13:52:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by umbriel.devever.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 180B41C055; Thu, 20 Jun 2019 22:52:41 +0200 (CEST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=devever.net; h= user-agent:in-reply-to:content-disposition:content-type :content-type:mime-version:references:message-id:subject:subject :from:from:date:date:received:received; s=mimas; t=1561063961; x=1579253322; bh=sBQDkBw/Rc/CgLI9dL+yajVC14d8KNsBb+5b82m5aLU=; b= qPaD8g4BARe91nhcpgR7AJ1kNsOY9JXSGy6nzlGm5tz3B39yFvzr1qFM7pMYY0AR IY99qeTYgMoPwc7BpzOpaeDQ0BjKtXN/91pJpjp+LWDY/d2PFZ4xyDSug4/Vt03O czapKydd/9M7n429YE8GF5+98kdfgpNj40eV+qyckR0PrQK9x6HIOqRUOm5kSMit CmlENBzvlJYaMKVuQek5fbnZMDgWl4MbMDxGubJ2HMZeizRhFvMiFOsHgpBBCQub hMGcDlzs28BKBTczdOE0D0zdvI8oEOR30bfvd+z0QAqC8k7GxLHKA4YyHP76FOJu rcaHVi19JObnt0G50yf3/g==
Received: from umbriel.devever.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (umbriel.devever.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10026) with LMTP id p9fMWNG7s94f; Thu, 20 Jun 2019 22:52:41 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from axminster (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by umbriel.devever.net (Postfix) with SMTP id A7DDC1C04E; Thu, 20 Jun 2019 22:52:40 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2019 21:52:40 +0100
From: Hugo Landau <hlandau@devever.net>
To: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>
Cc: Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, acme@ietf.org, Daniel McCarney <cpu@letsencrypt.org>, draft-ietf-acme-caa@ietf.org, acme-chairs@ietf.org, rdd@cert.org
Message-ID: <20190620205240.GA18888@axminster>
References: <156091016941.6816.6444315648910528081.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <CALaySJLi+Kh=WxALBTCWJrF3GM7AFW-Fo99LG7FDOHtMuK7o3Q@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CALaySJLi+Kh=WxALBTCWJrF3GM7AFW-Fo99LG7FDOHtMuK7o3Q@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.11.3 (2019-02-01)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/acme/SLjOj0mdlEvJGS3PdYAKgYq_cjM>
Subject: Re: [Acme] Benjamin Kaduk's No Objection on draft-ietf-acme-caa-09: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: acme@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Automated Certificate Management Environment <acme.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/acme>, <mailto:acme-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/acme/>
List-Post: <mailto:acme@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:acme-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/acme>, <mailto:acme-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2019 20:52:46 -0000

> I note (and thanks for the heads-up, Ben) that there's new ABNF in
> Section 4 of this version.  I have a DISCUSS-level question on it.
> 
> The ABNF allows for the value of "validationmethods" to be empty, but
> the first paragraph of Section 4 says, "The value of this parameter,
> if specified, MUST be a comma-separated string of validation method
> labels," which implies that it can't be empty.
> 
> Which is intended?  If it's mean to be allowed to be empty, please
> change the text to make that clear.  If not, then please remove the
> square-brackets on the ABNF for "value"; that will make it require at
> least one label.
By "string of validation method labels", I meant zero or more. I'll
amend it to clarify this.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email