Re: [Acme] Consensus -- CAA draft to WGLC?

2017-06-13 Thread Ilari Liusvaara
On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 05:33:48PM +, Salz, Rich wrote: > > The two last ones are editorial, but the first about enumerating all BR > > methods isn't (since it needs new validation method identifiers). > > Thinking about it a bit more, I don't think it is appropriate for > ACME to list CABF

Re: [Acme] v2

2017-06-13 Thread Daniel McCarney
> > Given that Let's Encrypt has evolved their interface some since the first > version, I'm not sure there's one consolidated spec out there for what they > currently have deployed. There isn't AFAIK - the closest thing is the list of "boulder divergences" we maintain along with the

Re: [Acme] Consensus -- CAA draft to WGLC?

2017-06-13 Thread Salz, Rich
> The two last ones are editorial, but the first about enumerating all BR > methods isn't (since it needs new validation method identifiers). Thinking about it a bit more, I don't think it is appropriate for ACME to list CABF things. That's a strong view as an individual, and a moderate view as

Re: [Acme] v2

2017-06-13 Thread Martin Thomson
I don't see the distinction between what LE deploy and ACME as defined by the IETF being any different to the distinction between whatever any other CA currently deploy and the IETF spec. It's a thing that exists, but I see no reason to accord the LE proprietary protocol any special status other

Re: [Acme] v2

2017-06-13 Thread Ted Hardie
On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 8:26 AM, Richard Barnes wrote: > (Everyone get your bike shed paint out) > > The IETF logo has a goldenrod-colored network path in it--how about that? Or that pay lavender? > In talking with a few folks around the community, I've heard people refer > to

[Acme] v2

2017-06-13 Thread Richard Barnes
(Everyone get your bike shed paint out) In talking with a few folks around the community, I've heard people refer to the IETF version of ACME as "v2", where implicitly "v1" is the initial version deployed by Let's Encrypt and its clients right now. How would people feel about reflecting this

Re: [Acme] Consensus -- CAA draft to WGLC?

2017-06-13 Thread Salz, Rich
> Couple of minor comments: These seem like all strictly editorial to me. Anyone disagree? -- Senior Architect, Akamai Technologies Member, OpenSSL Dev Team IM: richs...@jabber.at Twitter: RichSalz ___ Acme mailing list Acme@ietf.org

Re: [Acme] Call for adoption STAR (short-term automatically-renewed) certificates

2017-06-13 Thread Fossati, Thomas (Nokia - GB/Cambridge, UK)
Hi Richard, On 12/06/2017, 21:26, "Richard Barnes" wrote: > I'm still not convinced of the need for the other interface here, Despite appearances, the "other" interface is not an internal one. The actors are separate business entities, which vary in time and space: - a CDN