For reference, this version incorporates several PRs that we got finished since the last IETF meeting, listed below. One I would like to note in particular is that we added Daniel McCarney as a co-author in recognition of the role he's already been playing, contributing a lot of text and reviews. Thanks, Daniel! Now you're signed up to help address IESG review comments :)
Chairs: I think this version is ready to go back into WGLC / IESG processing. --Richard WIP: Further AD review responses (#348) Removed "tel" URIs from the examples (#353) Remove proactive issuance & csr-first new-order. (#342) Remove optional "scope" field from authorization objects. (#349) Define sub-problems. (#354) Use consistent example URLs. (#352) Remove incorrect "instance" usage. (#355) List feedback (#357) Responses to Gen-ART review (#358) Fix detail key in sub-problems (#361) Remove obsolete mention of authz reuse in pre-auth flow. (#365) Ignore `.targets.mk`. (#366) Remove the Out-of-Band (OOB) Challenge type. (#360) Add order finalization examples, fix new-order examples. (#367) Clarify external-account requirements (#359) Add a registry to track 'meta' fields (#369) Unifies to all object keys in camelCase (#362) Add Daniel McCarney as co-author (#370) On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 9:14 AM, <[email protected]> wrote: > > A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts > directories. > This draft is a work item of the Automated Certificate Management > Environment WG of the IETF. > > Title : Automatic Certificate Management Environment > (ACME) > Authors : Richard Barnes > Jacob Hoffman-Andrews > Daniel McCarney > James Kasten > Filename : draft-ietf-acme-acme-09.txt > Pages : 80 > Date : 2017-12-14 > > Abstract: > Certificates in PKI using X.509 (PKIX) are used for a number of > purposes, the most significant of which is the authentication of > domain names. Thus, certificate authorities in the Web PKI are > trusted to verify that an applicant for a certificate legitimately > represents the domain name(s) in the certificate. Today, this > verification is done through a collection of ad hoc mechanisms. This > document describes a protocol that a certification authority (CA) and > an applicant can use to automate the process of verification and > certificate issuance. The protocol also provides facilities for > other certificate management functions, such as certificate > revocation. > > RFC EDITOR: PLEASE REMOVE THE FOLLOWING PARAGRAPH: The source for > this draft is maintained in GitHub. Suggested changes should be > submitted as pull requests at https://github.com/ietf-wg-acme/acme > [1]. Instructions are on that page as well. Editorial changes can > be managed in GitHub, but any substantive change should be discussed > on the ACME mailing list ([email protected]). > > > The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-acme-acme/ > > There are also htmlized versions available at: > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-acme-acme-09 > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-acme-acme-09 > > A diff from the previous version is available at: > https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-acme-acme-09 > > > Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of > submission > until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org. > > Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: > ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ > > _______________________________________________ > Acme mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/acme >
_______________________________________________ Acme mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/acme
