Subject: [Acme] Fwd: Inconsistent abbreviations for resource names

From: Niklas Keller <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2017 21:28:11 +0100

I'm resending this message as there were no responses and nothing changed.

---------- Forwarded message ----------

Morning,

the current draft contains a few inconsistencies in the resource naming.

1) https://ietf-wg-acme.github.io/acme/#rfc.section.6.1 mentions
"revoke-certificate", while it's called "revoke-cert" in the rest of the
document.

2) There's "new-account", but the account resource is called "acct", I
think it should be "account" everywhere. We don't gain anything by saving a
few keystrokes / bytes there.

Maybe we should then also rename "authz" to "authorization" and "cert" to
"certificate" everywhere.

Regards, Niklas

---

From: Daniel McCarney <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2017 12:59:29 -0400

Hi Niklas,

I've submitted a PR to fix the inconsistencies you found:
https://github.com/ietf-wg-acme/acme/pull/282

The only place I could find the usage of "acct" that wasn't in a URL in
example JSON was the Section 7.1 diagram. I think having "acct" in URL
returned by the ACME server in examples is fine - the spec calls these
resources "accounts" but the server is free to use whatever it chooses for
the URL and clients shouldn't make assumptions about the content.

On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 4:28 PM, Niklas Keller <[email-masked]> wrote:

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

---

From: Jacob Hoffman-Andrews <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2017 10:01:37 -0700

Hi Niklas,

Sorry for the delay in getting back to you.

On 03/13/2017 01:28 PM, Niklas Keller wrote:
> 1) https://ietf-wg-acme.github.io/acme/#rfc.section.6.1
> <https://ietf-wg-acme.github.io/acme/#rfc.section.6.1> mentions
> "revoke-certificate", while it's called "revoke-cert" in the rest of
> the document.
I created a PR to change this to match the rest of the document:
https://github.com/ietf-wg-acme/acme/pull/283.

> think it should be "account" everywhere. We don't gain anything by
> saving a few keystrokes / bytes there.
The only thing the protocol specifies is the "new-account" name. In the
examples, we show the created resource as /acme/acct/1, but it's up to
the ACME server what path to use for those. I don't think it's necessary
for this name to match.
> Maybe we should then also rename "authz" to "authorization" and "cert"
> to "certificate" everywhere.
I'm not sure the value here is worth the extra changes to clients
(though I could be convinced otherwise).

---

From: Daniel McCarney <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2017 13:31:24 -0400

Oops! RFC editing is not thread safe and Jacob and I have encountered a
data race.

One of our PRs can be closed. I'm not particular about which :-)

On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 1:01 PM, Jacob Hoffman-Andrews <[email-masked]> wrote:

> examples, we show the created resource as /acme/acct/1, but it's up to the
> ACME server what path to use for those. I don't think it's necessary for
> this name to match.
>
> I'm not sure the value here is worth the extra changes to clients (though
> I could be convinced otherwise).
>