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?
Yes. 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. S. > 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;-)
0x7B172BEA.asc
Description: application/pgp-keys
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Acme mailing list Acme@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/acme
