On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 02:00:40PM -0700, Jacob Hoffman-Andrews wrote:
> > by CA/B forum as a "recommendation", which meant that the constraint
> > was meaningless. Rumour has it that CAA will soon be a requirement,
> > so I've now published CAA records. The CAA check is/was easy to
> > make
As Rich said, the CA/Browser Forum has indeed voted to mandate CAA. Hooray!
On 03/13/2017 01:14 PM, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
> I've had complete disinterest in CAA which initially was accepted
> by CA/B forum as a "recommendation", which meant that the constraint
> was meaningless. Rumour has it
I'm resending this message as there were no responses and nothing changed.
-- Forwarded message --
Morning,
the current draft contains a few inconsistencies in the resource naming.
1) https://ietf-wg-acme.github.io/acme/#rfc.section.6.1 mentions
"revoke-certificate", while it's
> Rumour has it that CAA will soon be a requirement
It just passed their balloting so CA/B forum now requires it. See the LAMPS WG
thread(s) on CAA erratum 4515.
> The CAA check is/was easy to make and crippling it
> by not making it a requirement was IMNSHO a mistake.
...
> I urge the WG to
