One thing that I forgot to bring up during the meeting was an issue that was brought up with regards to the order in which the ACME-TLS-ALPN and ACME-IP drafts are standardized. ACME-IP defines how to use IP addresses with existing challenges and we’d like to include guidance on how to do so with TLS-ALPN, but (as far as I’m aware) we are unable to reference IDs in RFCs so we cannot directly reference draft-ietf-acme-tls-alpn (and if we were to include guidance on how to use TLS-ALPN with IPs in draft-ietf-acme-tls-alpn we could not directly reference draft-ietf-acme-ip). It might be possible to do this in draft-ietf-acme-tls-alpn by skirting around any references to IP identifiers and just provide the guidance on how to do this _if there is a way_ to do IP for validation but it feels a bit hacky.
Does anyone have strong opinions on how to handle this? I feel like the best approach may be to just wait for one document to be standardized and then move onto the second one (probably TLS-ALPN first since it’s slightly more important from my perspective but ¯\_(ツ)_/¯). > On Jul 18, 2018, at 11:47 AM, Salz, Rich <rsalz=40akamai....@dmarc.ietf.org> > wrote: > > As discussed in a separate thread, we added mandatory-to-implement JSON > signing crypto (TLS 1.3 signing algorithms); note that this does not affect > the certificates themselves. > > We decided to move draft-ietf-acme-tls-alpn and draft-ietf-acme-ip to working > group last call. > > If you disagree with either of these decisions, please speak up by Monday. > Note that the WGLC for the main document is being re-run in parallel with > IESG and soon IETF review. > > > _______________________________________________ > Acme mailing list > Acme@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/acme _______________________________________________ Acme mailing list Acme@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/acme
