Re: [Acme] Handling non-conformant CAA property names in ACME-CAA

[Ryan Sleevi <[e-mail]>]

On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 4:47 PM, Roland Shoemaker <[e-mail]>
wrote:

> As previously discussed on the list the two property names defined in
> draft-ietf-acme-caa, "validation-methods” and "account-uri”, do not conform
> to the ABNF syntax in RFC 6844 as they contain hyphens. 6844-bis fixes this
> by expanding the ABNF to be less restrictive but for now this doesn’t
> really address the problem at hand.
>
> Given it is probably unlikely that 6844-bis will be standardized any time
> soon is there any plan to make changes to draft-ietf-acme-caa to address
> this in the short term? Given we are not yet at the point where there is
> wide deployment/adoption of this feature can we take the easy route and
> simply remove the hyphens so that the document at least complies with the
> existing CAA document?
>

It is not just that -bis would need to be finalized and standardized, but
that CAs would also have to adopt and recognize the syntax in -bis,
updating their 6844 implementations. Even if -bis were final tomorrow, that
would still take considerable time, given the normative differences, and so
I think aligning on an inter-operable expression is certainly preferable,
allowing it to work with both 6844 and -bis.