Ah, awesome. Well that makes life a lot easier! I’ll work to get a version of ACME-IP that includes this up today or tomorrow.
> On Jul 19, 2018, at 2:05 PM, Ilari Liusvaara <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Thu, Jul 19, 2018 at 01:03:14PM -0700, Roland Shoemaker wrote: >> One thing that I forgot to bring up during the meeting was an issue >> that was brought up with regards to the order in which the ACME-TLS-ALPN >> and ACME-IP drafts are standardized. ACME-IP defines how to use IP >> addresses with existing challenges and we’d like to include guidance >> on how to do so with TLS-ALPN, but (as far as I’m aware) we are unable >> to reference IDs in RFCs so we cannot directly reference >> draft-ietf-acme-tls-alpn > > This is incorrect. IDs can normatively reference other IDs, if > there is a "plan" on getting the referenced ID ready to be published. > If needed, the referencing draft waits for the referenced one in > RFC-Editor queue. > > So I think the easiest way is to just have normative reference > ACME-IP -> TLS-ALPN. > > > -Ilari _______________________________________________ Acme mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/acme
