On 13/09/2019, 13:41, "Thomas Fossati" wrote:
> It seems to me that this might still be possible modulo
> recurrent-certificate-adjust (rcp) being upper bounded by
> recurrent-cert-validity (rcv), i.e., slightly changing the calculations
> in 3.5 like this:
>
> notBefore = nrd[i] - predating
Thanks Richard for raising this and Ryan for taking the time to explain.
On 11/09/2019, 17:52, "Ryan Sleevi" wrote:
> I'm not Richard, but with respect to publicly trusted certificates,
> issuing a certificate with a notBefore set prior to that certificate
> was issued is seen as, minimally,
Hi!
> -Original Message-
> From: Acme [mailto:acme-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Thomas Fossati
> Sent: Thursday, September 12, 2019 7:38 AM
> To: Salz, Rich ; Richard Barnes
> Cc: IETF ACME ; Thomas Fossati
>
> Subject: Re: [Acme] draft-ietf-acme-star
>
>
On 11/09/2019, 18:40, "Salz, Rich" wrote:
> > the protocol is still correct/consistent. But, let's be bold as
> > it's probably worth taking the risk :-)
>
> We can ask that the IESG/IETF do a simultaneous re-review period of
> something like two weeks.
Sounds good, thank you.
IMPORTANT
>the protocol is still correct/consistent. But, let's be bold as it's
probably worth taking the risk :-)
We can ask that the IESG/IETF do a simultaneous re-review period of something
like two weeks.
Thanks.
___
Acme mailing list
On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 12:09 PM Thomas Fossati
wrote:
> 2 The pre-dating that the ACME server MUST do on cert rotation to
> prevent the client to fetch a not-yet-valid credential (i.e., the
> overlap you mention).
>
> IIUC, you are suggesting to drop the former, i.e., removing the ability
>
Hi Rich, Richard,
(Merging both your emails into one reply.)
On 09/09/2019, 23:57, "Salz, Rich" wrote:
> I don't care about the STAR acronym not bring known by those who don't
> know :) but I think Richard's comments – most of which are, really,
> wordsmithing nits of message-field names –
: Richard Barnes
Date: Monday, September 9, 2019 at 6:44 PM
To: Thomas Fossati
Cc: "acme@ietf.org"
Subject: Re: [Acme] draft-ietf-acme-star
On Mon, Sep 9, 2019 at 4:15 AM Thomas Fossati
mailto:thomas.foss...@arm.com>> wrote:
Hi Richard,
Thank you for the detailed review. As y
On Mon, Sep 9, 2019 at 4:15 AM Thomas Fossati
wrote:
> Hi Richard,
>
> Thank you for the detailed review. As you note yourself, this is quite
> late in the document life-cycle (the draft completed IETF LC over a
> month ago), which is unfortunate, given that every one of your comments
> is an
Hi Richard,
Thank you for the detailed review. As you note yourself, this is quite
late in the document life-cycle (the draft completed IETF LC over a
month ago), which is unfortunate, given that every one of your comments
is an actual protocol change. As far as we understand, none of them can
be
I had a chance to take a look at this draft as a result of being a
designated expert on the registries. I approved the registrations, but
independently, I have several major concerns about the draft. In no
particular order
- The use of the "STAR" acronym is not helpful. This is not an acronym
11 matches
Mail list logo
