Benjamin Kaduk has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-acme-ip-07: Yes
When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-acme-ip/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Section 7 There's perhaps some "action at a distance" going on here, in that we try to apply normative requirements on unrelated things. Perhaps it's safer to just say "this document does not define any usage of the 'dns-01' challenge to validate IP addresses. But if we can definitively rule out any future use, then it doesn't really matter. Section 9 Is there anything to say about issuing certificates for non-publicly-routable IP addresses in terms of ensuring that the ACME server and client are in the same administrative domain [and enforcing that by network topology]? _______________________________________________ Acme mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/acme
