On 23/02/18 16:31, Salz, Rich wrote:
>> Here is the ID:
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-shoemaker-acme-tls-alpn/
> Should the WG adopt this document?  


Having a sufficiently secure mechanism that works on port 443 is
a good thing in general. I'm not sure how many folks were using
tls-sni-01 for new domains (I was) but whatever that number was,
is I think evidence that a port 443 scheme fills a read need.

I assume that if problems are found with the new mechanism
(whether those be technical, due to odd deployments or I guess
even cabforum politics;-) then we'd recognise that and stop
the work. The fact that we did that to tls-sni-02 hould be
re-assuring wrt this.

If one accepts the two assertions above then adoption seems
like a no-brainer.


> Speak up now, we'll make a
> consensus decision next week.  Also if you are able to help work on
> it.  If adopted, I would expect this to be on the agenda for London
> next month, even if it's just to briefly introduce it.
> _______________________________________________ Acme mailing list 
> Acme@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/acme

PGP key change time for me.
New-ID 7B172BEA; old-ID 805F8DA2 expires Jan 24 2018.
NewWithOld sigs in keyservers.
Sorry if that mucks something up;-)

Attachment: 0x7B172BEA.asc
Description: application/pgp-keys

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Acme mailing list

Reply via email to