Re: [Acme] Comments on draft-barnes-acme-service-provider

On 11 July 2017 at 07:29, Mary Barnes wrote: > Hi Martin, > > Thanks for taking the time to review. We're actually working on a revision > right now addressing your comments and agree totally with your point that > more detail is definitely needed in this draft.

Re: [Acme] Comments on draft-barnes-acme-service-provider

Hi Martin, Thanks for taking the time to review. We're actually working on a revision right now addressing your comments and agree totally with your point that more detail is definitely needed in this draft. Since we were still reviewing letter ballot comments on the document at the draft

Re: [Acme] Comments on draft-barnes-acme-service-provider

I just realized that I misunderstood and there is a bearer token being used to resolve the challenge and the service provider is responsible for talking to the STI-PA to get this. I think that this needs to have a bit more detail for it to be understood. On 10 July 2017 at 11:36, Martin Thomson

[Acme] Comments on draft-barnes-acme-service-provider

This document is a key piece of the STIR/SHAKEN infrastructure, as such, I think that this is worth working on and a good basis for that. I have a few questions, some of which might touch on the stir-certificates draft (which I see is in the RFC editor's queue, hmm). STIR certificates define