Re: [Acme] WGLC comments: draft-ietf-acme-tls-alpn-01 (Re: Confirming consensus)

2018-08-10 Thread Roland Shoemaker
Thanks for taking a look. I’ve opened https://github.com/rolandshoemaker/acme-tls-alpn/pull/6/files to address most of these comments. For (4) the plan is to simply version it as suggested, that’s why we went with a two part OID with the base and then a versioned extension. If we need to

Re: [Acme] WGLC comments: draft-ietf-acme-tls-alpn-01 (Re: Confirming consensus)

2018-08-08 Thread Martin Thomson
On Thu, Aug 9, 2018 at 12:32 PM Sean Turner wrote: > 5) General: Okay so I’m no cryptographer, but should the hash algorithm used > in the challenge correspond to the hash algorithm used in the PRF/HKDF? I > mean if I’m going to use TLS 1.3 and TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 should I really > use

[Acme] WGLC comments: draft-ietf-acme-tls-alpn-01 (Re: Confirming consensus)

2018-08-08 Thread Sean Turner
Couple of comments: 0) s2: Use the update text: The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only