Aaron,
Yes, this is intentional and it's due to a slight difference in the
mechanics between the two mechanisms.
While the RFC 8823 mechanism can generate a unique "from" email address for
each challenge (e.g. the document example "
acme-challenge+2i211oi1204...@example.com") that the client can us
Brian,
Fantastic, thank you for the responses! One further comment inline.
On Thu, Sep 30, 2021 at 3:28 PM Brian Sipos
wrote:
> BS1: This is to handle a basic property that BP bundles are necessarily
> independent units, unidirectional, and (currently) have no "conversation"
> or "flow" associa
Aaron,
These are all good points to notice. My responses are inline below with the
prefix "BS1".
On Wed, Sep 29, 2021 at 5:51 PM Aaron Gable wrote:
> A couple comments/questions from my recent read-through.
>
> - In Section 3, it says "the validation procedure is successful only if
> all respons
A couple comments/questions from my recent read-through.
- In Section 3, it says "the validation procedure is successful only if all
responses are successful". This language is included because the draft
explicitly accounts for multi-perspective validation, with each perspective
using a different
All,
This latest update to the DTN Node ID validation draft should resolve all
of the AD comments *except* for this document updating a document from a
different WG. The discrepancy in BPv7 (not) using admin record type IANA
registry can be pulled out of this ACME document and made into its own
sep
A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item of the Automated Certificate Management Environment
WG of the IETF.
Title : Automated Certificate Management Environment (ACME)
Delay-Tolerant Networking (DTN) Node ID Va
