On 05/21/2018 11:55 AM, Roland Shoemaker wrote:
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?
Let's continue to work on the IP draft with the assumption that
something named tls-alpn will land, with the goal to land them both
around the same time. In the unlikely event the IP draft is ready to
finalize before tls-alpn is, we can choose then to either hold it up, or
remove the reference to tls-alpn. I'd like to avoid coupling things as
much as possible since that's a surefire way to slow progress.
_______________________________________________
Acme mailing list
Acme@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/acme
