Toerless Eckert <[email protected]> wrote: > Thanks a lot for the review, just committed -22 to answer to your > review, providing separate diffs inline for the rfc822 vs IPsec parts > to easier separate out the fixes for you. For everybody else, they can > just do a diff -21 -> -22, which will also include the input changes to > your review.
After all the nice text in section 6.3 on page 37 justifying why the objective is called IKEv2, why did the title of 6.7.1 change to IPsec? IPsec is manually keyed. IKEv2 is not. If this is too confusing to TLS people, then perhaps we could say: 6.7.1 ACP via IKEv2 (IPsec) As for the rfc822Name debate, it is a format (other than pure FQDN), which lets us use ACME with the proposed email-reply-00 challenge in draft-ietf-acme-email-smime. The only other alternative is FQDN with dns-01, and that would likely be uglier. If these unnamed PKIX experts would like to debate this with us openly, they know where to find the WG. -- Michael Richardson <[email protected]>, Sandelman Software Works -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Anima mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima
