On 06/08/2012 12:06 PM, Endi Sukma Dewata wrote:
On 6/8/2012 1:12 PM, Andrew Wnuk wrote:
> On 06/07/2012 02:04 PM, Endi Sukma Dewata wrote:
>> On 6/7/2012 11:38 AM, Andrew Wnuk wrote:
>>> On 06/07/2012 07:28 AM, Endi Sukma Dewata wrote:
>>>> The cert revocation CLI provides a tool to revoke and unrevoke
>>>> certificates.
>>>
>>> "unrevoke" is really inappropriate term. It suggests that one
could
>>> unrevoke any revoked certificate where is fact one can only take off
>>> hold certificates that are currently on hold.
>>
>> How about a "revoke" command for permanent revocation only, and
>> separate "on-hold" and "off-hold" commands for temporary
revocation?
>> Any suggestions?
>>
> This is asymmetric case. "on-hold" is just one of many revocation
> reasons. Certificate can be taken off hold if it was revoked with
> "on-hold" reason. There are only two operations: certificate revocation
> and taking certificates off hold.
The original "revoke" operation is partially asymmetric (permanent
revocation) and partially symmetric (temporarily on-hold). It might be
more intuitive to create a new "revoke" command that does asymmetric
operation only (no "unrevoke" operation) and separate "on-hold" and
"off-hold" commands for the symmetric operations.
If we only have "revoke" and "off-hold" only, people might be
thinking, there's an "off-hold" command, so how do I "hold" a
cert? It
might not be very obvious that the "revoke" command has an "on-hold"
option which behaves differently from the other revoke reasons.
I tend to agree from a pure CLI perspective. Behind the scenes,
"on-hold" is really a revocation reason, but that doesn't mean we need
to make the CLI use the exact same terminology.
How about having "revoke", "on-hold", and "off-hold"
commands? We can
still allow one to use the "revoke" command and specify the revocation
reason as on-hold, which would be the equivalent of the "on-hold" command.