-Original Message-
From: Martin Thomson
Sent: 18 October 2021 09:46
To: Owen Friel (ofriel) ; acme@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Acme] 2nd working group call for adoption
On Fri, Oct 15, 2021, at 18:00, Owen Friel (ofriel) wrote:
> Not sure why "domainNamespace" is used as t
I have read the draft and support its adoption.
On 14.10.21 14:16, 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
On Fri, Oct 15, 2021, at 18:00, Owen Friel (ofriel) wrote:
> 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
You don't say if you support adoption or not.
Is this something the WG should on? Once adopted, the WG can change it.
Seo Suchan wrote:
> 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
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
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,
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
Just read it. Reasonable thing to specify.
Not sure why this doesn't talk about delegations of the domain and the effect
that might have. That seems relevant. Though control over the parent implies
control over delegations, it might be a consideration when setting policy.
Not sure why
I have read the document, and I think that ACME should adopt it.
Russ
> On Oct 14, 2021, at 8:16 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
>
I support adoption.
___
Acme mailing list
Acme@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/acme
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
11 matches
Mail list logo
