RA/CA: Make MaxNames field consistent and supply default

[beautifulentropy]

Update RA and CA configuration to be more consistent with the identical MaxNames field added to the WFE by #7201.

[aarongable]

Is there a particular reason we're interested in these having a default value? We already supply this config field everywhere, so the added flexibility here isn't buying us much. Especially since we're considering lowering the maxNames (at least on a per-profile basis), having a default may make that transition more confusing.

But if we do want this, then LGTM, the code does what it says on the tin

[beautifulentropy]

Is there a particular reason we're interested in these having a default value? We already supply this config field everywhere, so the added flexibility here isn't buying us much. Especially since we're considering lowering the maxNames (at least on a per-profile basis), having a default may make that transition more confusing.

But if we do want this, then LGTM, the code does what it says on the tin

Honestly, I added the identical field to the WFE and realized that it would be nice if the implementation and documentation were consistent across all three components. If you think we should strip the defaulting logic, I'm open to it.

[aarongable]

Yeah, having the default in the WFE makes sense because it makes for easy deployability. But I don't think its necessary to do the same here, especially since I'm likely to be changing how MaxNames works (moving it inside issuance.ProfileConfig) anyway so the extra scaffolding will just make that more complex in a week or two.

[jsha]

Like Aaron, I think this is fine, though maybe not needed.

[beautifulentropy]

Like Aaron, I think this is fine, though maybe not needed.

Alright, thanks for the comments @jsha and @aarongable. I've reverted the defaulting.