Subject: [Acme] Clarifying "new-x" resources paragraph

From: Daniel McCarney <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 25 Aug 2016 16:20:59 -0400

Hello again,

I've taken a crack at clarifying what I found to be a confusing paragraph
from
Section 6.1 "Resources"[0]:

> For the "new-X" resources above, the server MUST have exactly one
resource for
> each function.  This resource may be addressed by multiple URIs, but all
must
> provide equivalent functionality.

This was tough to parse and at first blush seems potentially contradictory.
It's not clear to me what this MUST is aiming to discourage, especially in
light
of an allowance of multiple URIs if functionality is equivalent.

Similarly, while the text says "new-X" I believe the intentions of the
statements that follow would include some of the resources that have been
added
since, e.g. "key-change".

I've proposed an update[1] in PR #179. If I've missed the mark in this
clarification perhaps someone who was involved with the spec at the time of
writing can help guide me to something both clearer & accurate to the
original
spirit.

- Daniel/cpu

[0]
https://github.com/ietf-wg-acme/acme/blob/3502ff0bfb6d434b4326e206ea7cae7b8434ac7d/draft-ietf-acme-acme.md#resources
[1] https://github.com/ietf-wg-acme/acme/pull/179/files

---

From: Richard Barnes <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 26 Aug 2016 13:12:49 -0400

This looked fine to me, so I just merged it.

On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 4:20 PM, Daniel McCarney <[email-masked]>
wrote:

> [0] https://github.com/ietf-wg-acme/acme/blob/
> 3502ff0bfb6d434b4326e206ea7cae7b8434ac7d/draft-ietf-acme-acme.md#resources
> _______________________________________________
> Acme mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/acme
>
>