Subject: [Acme] Allowable mailto contacts

From: Logan Widick <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2017 12:59:22 -0500

All,

What portions of the "mailto" URI scheme (RFC 6068) must an ACME server be
able to accept as contacts? The examples I saw in the draft depict one-item
"to" productions with no headers (e.g. "mailto:[email-masked]"), but I
couldn't find further details on what is allowed and what is not.

Would ACME servers need to accept multi-item "to" productions (e.g. "mailto:
[email-masked],[email-masked]")?

What headers from RFC 5322 would ACME servers need to be able to accept?
For example, would an ACME server need to accept the following:
"mailto:[email-masked]?to=[email-masked]"
"mailto:[email-masked]?cc=[email-masked]"
"mailto:[email-masked]?bcc=[email-masked]"
"mailto:[email-masked]?subject=Hello%20World"
"mailto:[email-masked]?keywords=hello,world,acme"

Sincerely,

Logan Widick

---

From: Jacob Hoffman-Andrews <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2017 13:20:02 -0700

On 10/19/2017 10:59 AM, Logan Widick wrote:
> What portions of the "mailto" URI scheme (RFC 6068) must an ACME server
> be able to accept as contacts?

Good question. I think we'd like to specify the narrowest subset
possible, i.e. "mailto:[email-masked]". What would that look like in
the language of RFC 6068?

---

From: Logan Widick <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2017 15:52:59 -0500

I was not involved with RFC 6068 in any way. However, from my understanding
of the RFC, that subset ("mailto:[email-masked]") might (roughly) look
something like:
1. No hfields (that appears to be the RFC 6068 term for the query string
and its parameters) are allowed (The spec doesn't appear to have a fragment)
2. Only one e-mail address per mailto contact

Or at least that is how I would understand the constraints.

Sincerely,

Logan Widick

On Oct 19, 2017 3:20 PM, "Jacob Hoffman-Andrews" <[email-masked]> wrote:

_______________________________________________
Acme mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/acme

---

From: Richard Barnes <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2017 17:30:33 -0400

Good catch, Logan.  Suggested fix:

https://github.com/ietf-wg-acme/acme/pull/346

On Thu, Oct 19, 2017 at 4:52 PM, Logan Widick <[email-masked]>
wrote:

> I was not involved with RFC 6068 in any way. However, from my
> understanding of the RFC, that subset ("mailto:[email-masked]") might
> (roughly) look something like:

---

From: Alexey Melnikov <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2017 12:01:16 +0100

Hi,

On 19/10/2017 21:52, Logan Widick wrote:
> understanding of the RFC, that subset ("mailto:[email-masked] 
> <mailto:[email-masked]>") might (roughly) look something like:
> 1. No hfields (that appears to be the RFC 6068 term for the query 
> string and its parameters) are allowed (The spec doesn't appear to 
> have a fragment)
I think these 2 restrictions are very sensible.

Best Regards,
Alexey
> On Oct 19, 2017 3:20 PM, "Jacob Hoffman-Andrews" <[email-masked] 
> <mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:
>
>     possible, i.e. "mailto:[email-masked]
>     <mailto:[email-masked]>". What would that look like in