[Acme] acme - Requested session has been scheduled for IETF 112
Dear Deb Cooley, The session(s) that you have requested have been scheduled. Below is the scheduled session information followed by the original request. acme Session 1 (1:00 requested) Thursday, 11 November 2021, Session II 1430-1530 Room Name: Room 8 size: 508 - iCalendar: https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/112/sessions/acme.ics Request Information: - Working Group Name: Automated Certificate Management Environment Area Name: Security Area Session Requester: Deb Cooley Number of Sessions: 1 Length of Session(s): 1 Hour Number of Attendees: 30 Conflicts to Avoid: People who must be present: Deb Cooley Roman Danyliw Yoav Nir Resources Requested: Special Requests: - ___ Acme mailing list Acme@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/acme
Re: [Acme] 2nd working group call for adoption
I think it'd better to not limit challenge type to dns-01, but to any challenge type that CA is be allowed to issue wildcard cert from it. there may be add another challenge type (like using rfc8823's mail challange to CAA iodef or whois mail?) or DNS challenge may needed to amend to dns-02 in future. ___ Acme mailing list Acme@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/acme
Re: [Acme] 2nd working group call for adoption
I have read the document, and support its adoption. This functionality actually reflects the existing behavior of a lot of CAs in the Web PKI (allowing issuance for subdomains after validating a registered domain), so it's good to have clear semantics in ACME for it. --Richard On Thu, Oct 14, 2021 at 8:17 AM Cooley, Dorothy E wrote: > This is the second working group call for adoption of: > draft-friel-acme-subdomains-05. > We have had presentations of this work at the most recent interim > (clarifications presented) and at many of the past IETF meetings. > > Please review the draft and post your comments to the list by Thursday, 28 > October 2021. > > Thanks, > Deb and Yoav > > > ___ > Acme mailing list > Acme@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/acme > ___ Acme mailing list Acme@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/acme
Re: [Acme] 2nd working group call for adoption
Not sure why "domainNamespace" is used as the field when "subdomains" is shorter and easier to understand. [ofriel] there was early discussion on the mailer about what exactly a 'subdomain' meant. So we quoted the CA/B Browser baseline definitions and used that terminology instead. Note that the draft is not restricted to web use cases, so basing terminology on CA/B is not by any means mandatory. I have no strong preference on what we call the field at all - subdomains and namespaces are both used in the draft, so happy to change to whatever is clearest. ___ Acme mailing list Acme@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/acme
