Ah, yup, good catch. I totally spaced we’d pulled that out. Likely we’ll want to reference TLS-ALPN here but it kind of ends up being a chicken and egg scenario. If draft-ietf-acme-tls-alpn gets standardized first we’ll want to mention that in this document updating it’s method to accept IPs, if we standardize draft-ietf-acme-ip first we’ll want to mention in draft-ietf-acme-tls-alpn that it can work with IP identifiers.
It seems like there is more forward momentum on draft-ietf-acme-tls-alpn so I suspect we should just wait for that to be done to get this out the door… thoughts? > On May 19, 2018, at 4:58 AM, Ilari Liusvaara <ilariliusva...@welho.com> wrote: > > On Fri, May 18, 2018 at 03:16:32PM -0700, Roland Shoemaker wrote: >> Sorry for the lag on getting this out. Given the discussions at IETF >> 101 and on the list the main change in this version is the removal of >> the reverse-dns challenge type. While I still think there is some value >> in at least having a technical definition of the method there is enough >> opposition that it’s inclusion in this draft would’ve stopped any >> forward progress in its tracks. Otherwise there are a few minor editorial >> changes but not much else. > > I note that TLS-SNI-02 is still there. But that method has gotten ripped > out from the main ACME spec due to security problems. > > > -Ilari _______________________________________________ Acme mailing list Acme@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/acme
