Henry Birge-Lee <birge...@princeton.edu> wrote:
> Would you be willing to share some of your concerns on the draft? We would
> like to be proactive and begin addressing your feedback as opposed to
> waiting for the adoption call to come up.
I will be happy to write them up, but I don't have cycles now.
While reading a few days ago, my concerns are:
(a) the use cases and trust relationships that lead to this
need are not well enough defined. X doesn't play well with Y is not a
reason to change a security protocol.
(Sometimes one or both should just be fired. This feels like a
technological solutions to just very poor management)
I don't buy the IoT case at all.
(I'm co-author of ietf-acme-integrations ... I have running code for
two forms of that)
(b) there are potential very complex interactions between this process,
particularly when applied to an entire domain, and other methods.
For instance, http-01.
Neither of these statements are really actionable to you at this point, so
please
give me some time to detail.
> If it's easier, I could probably
> jump on a call to better understand your position.
No, that would not be easier.
--
Michael Richardson <mcr+i...@sandelman.ca> . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Acme mailing list -- acme@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to acme-le...@ietf.org
