Re: [Acme] draft-ietf-acme-tls-alpn-03

2018-08-15 Thread Russ Housley
One additional point. The same IANA process would be used to get object identifiers for subsequent versions. The difference is which table the value comes from. Russ > On Aug 15, 2018, at 11:10 AM, Richard Barnes wrote: > > I don't really think it matters much who's going to make a new

Re: [Acme] draft-ietf-acme-tls-alpn-03

2018-08-15 Thread Richard Barnes
I don't really think it matters much who's going to make a new version. The only difference here is whether you go back to IANA to get a new code point. Given that the IANA process is not onerous, it seems like the extra couple of octets are not really adding anything here. So I'm inclined to do

Re: [Acme] draft-ietf-acme-tls-alpn-03

2018-08-14 Thread Roland Shoemaker
The decision to format the OID this way was an early one that I’m not completely attached to. That said the existing solution does still feel cleaner to me than doing the versioning directly under id-pe. Given it’s unlikely that the version with be incremented by anything other than a document

[Acme] draft-ietf-acme-tls-alpn-03

2018-08-14 Thread Russ Housley
This document include a particular object identifier, and IANA has not assigned it yet. Please do not assume that you will get the next available number. Someone else could get there before you. This document uses the following syntax for the certificate extension: