The client draft is adopted as a WG item, so if the WG would like to move
in that direction, I am of course happy to support it. If it makes sense to
keep the client focused authentication challenges as a separate draft, that
is fine too. Additional reviews on the existing text would be good or
Hi Anders,
On Tue, Oct 19, 2021 at 2:08 PM Anders Rundgren <
anders.rundgren@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2021-10-19 19:00, Kathleen Moriarty wrote:
> > Hello Anders,
> >
> > The draft extends ACME to add client challenge methods that might be
> helpful. This
Hello Anders,
The draft extends ACME to add client challenge methods that might be
helpful. This could be for several use cases including code signing
automation or client certificate management. Does the draft contain what
you need? The use case from your message is not clear to me.
Thank you,
Greetings,
The version 4 addresses Deb’s comments (provided she agrees). I’d like to
determine if this document is ready for last call. To state it simply, it
added several challenge types, which can be separated from certificate/key
types in ACME. I think this would be useful as a working
Hello Deb,
Thank you for taking the time to review the draft again. I'll respond in
line and update the draft accordingly.
On Tue, Sep 28, 2021 at 6:52 AM Cooley, Dorothy E wrote:
> Kathleen,
>
> Thank you for updating the client draft. This is a rough and quick review,
> just to get things
This update was to update my email address only. Comments are welcome!
Best regards,
Kathleen
On Mon, Oct 5, 2020 at 11:51 AM wrote:
>
> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
> directories.
> This draft is a work item of the Automated Certificate Management
>
know whether it
>>> is a common practice.
>>>
>>> On Tue, Jul 28, 2020 at 3:58 PM wrote:
>>>
>>>> Roland,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Thank you, that’s very helpful Any other opinions? I’m very happy to
&g
Hello Carl,
Thank you for your review and I apologize for my extremely tardy response.
On Mon, May 18, 2020 at 11:41 AM Carl Mehner wrote:
> Looking at the latest draft for acme-client, I noticed that it mentions
> CAA:
>CAA helps as anyone verifying a certificate used for code signing can
Sent from my mobile device
> On Nov 18, 2019, at 5:29 AM, Michael Richardson wrote:
>
>
> I-D Expiring System wrote:
>> was just expired. This draft is
>> in the state "I-D Exists" in the Datatracker.
>
> I just wanted to say that this was intentional on the part of Kathleen and I.
> We
u!
> 5. Section 7.3: typos regisration sb registration, puiblic sb public.
>
Fixed, thank you!
I appreciate your careful review. Thank you!
Kathleen
>
> On Sun, Nov 3, 2019 at 10:00 AM Thomas Peterson
> wrote:
>
>> Asides from a typo nit you have introduced acknow
another
reviewer as well off list.
Best regards,
Kathleen
>
> Regards
>
>> On 01/11/2019 15:50, Kathleen Moriarty wrote:
>> Hello,
>> I posted an update of
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-moriarty-acme-client/
>> <https://datatracker.ietf.org/d
Hello,
I posted an update of
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-moriarty-acme-client/ that includes
a few updates per Tim Hollebeek's review.
Additional comments and reviews appreciated!
--
Best regards,
Kathleen
___
Acme mailing list
Sharing comments to the list per Tim saying that would be okay.
-- Forwarded message -
From: Tim Hollebeek
Date: Mon, Sep 23, 2019 at 3:56 PM
Subject: RE: EV ACME
To: Kathleen Moriarty
1. Introduction
“Code SIgning” -> “Code Signing”
I don’t usually think of code sign
, 2019 2:23 PM
To: Moriarty, Kathleen; Moriarty, Kathleen
Subject: New Version Notification for draft-moriarty-acme-client-02.txt
[EXTERNAL EMAIL]
A new version of I-D, draft-moriarty-acme-client-02.txt
has been successfully submitted by Kathleen M. Moriarty and posted to the
IETF repository.
Name
Thank you to Thomas for the review and text below, I'll include it in the
next update. Shared here for transparency.
Best regards,
Kathleen
*From:* Thomas Peterson
*Date:* July 23, 2019 at 11:20:05 AM GMT-4
*To:*
*Subject:* *draft-moriarty-acme-client - TOTP, HOTP, etc.*
[EXTERNAL EMAIL]
Sent from my mobile device
> On Jul 11, 2019, at 4:56 PM, Owen Friel (ofriel) wrote:
>
> Hi all,
> Could I have 10 mins to cover:
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-friel-acme-integrations-01
>
> There is some overlap with
>
Hello,
In the ACME meeting, I had asked if this draft could have text added to
address how client certificates could be generated since this was written
specific to server certificates, but could easily be extended as the
difference in most cases would just be in the CSR. Could this text be
On Fri, Mar 29, 2019 at 4:31 AM Richard Barnes wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, Mar 29, 2019 at 9:30 AM Kathleen Moriarty <
> kathleen.moriarty.i...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Mar 29, 2019 at 4:27 AM Richard Barnes wrote:
>>
>>>
>
On Fri, Mar 29, 2019 at 4:27 AM Richard Barnes wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, Mar 29, 2019 at 7:49 AM Kathleen Moriarty <
> kathleen.moriarty.i...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I meant to respond inline as well.
>>
>> Sent from my mobile device
>>
>>
>> implementors may find using ACME better for consistency sake as they may
>> already be doing existing issuance using it.
>>
>> Browser support I believe remains the biggest challenge for this and I
>> would like to hear the thoughts from browser vendors on list.
&g
ady be doing existing issuance using it.
>>
>> Browser support I believe remains the biggest challenge for this and I
>> would like to hear the thoughts from browser vendors on list.
>>
>> Regards
>>
>> On 20/03/2019 14:59, Kathleen Moriarty wrot
Hello,
I am attaching a draft on several client certificate types to discuss in
Prague. The draft intentionally leaves some open questions for discussion
and I'll form the slides for the presentation in Prague around those
questions.
Thanks in advance for your review and discussion in Prague.
Hi Rich,
I’m hoping to have a draft ready, but obviously missed the cut off date. I
will have it ready before submissions open again. This is on device client
certificates.
Thank you,
Kathleen
Sent from my mobile device
> On Mar 13, 2019, at 10:25 PM, Salz, Rich wrote:
>
> ACME is
Well done, thank you all for your work on this document!
Kathleen
Sent from my mobile device
> On Mar 11, 2019, at 6:05 PM, Daniel McCarney wrote:
>
> +1! Thanks everyone!
>
>> On Mon, Mar 11, 2019 at 6:03 PM Jacob Hoffman-Andrews wrote:
>> Yes, big thanks! This was a huge group effort
Thank you!
Sent from my iPhone
> On Nov 5, 2017, at 11:30 PM, Richard Barnes <r...@ipv.sx> wrote:
>
>
>
>> On Fri, Nov 3, 2017 at 12:59 PM, Kathleen Moriarty
>> <kathleen.moriarty.i...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, Oct 31, 2017 at 3
On Tue, Oct 31, 2017 at 3:51 PM, Richard Barnes <r...@ipv.sx> wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, Oct 30, 2017 at 9:37 PM, Kathleen Moriarty
> <kathleen.moriarty.i...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Richard,
>>
>> On Mon, Oct 30, 2017 at 6:27 PM, Richard Barnes <r...
Hi Richard,
On Mon, Oct 30, 2017 at 6:27 PM, Richard Barnes <r...@ipv.sx> wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, Oct 30, 2017 at 5:00 PM, Kathleen Moriarty
> <kathleen.moriarty.i...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Richard,
>>
>> Thanks for posting the diff, I review
issues around proactive issuance / caching of CSRs. That may require a
> re-WGLC, but once that's closed, it should be safe to send to IETF LC.
>
>
> On Fri, Sep 22, 2017 at 4:14 PM, Kathleen Moriarty
> <kathleen.moriarty.i...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Hello,
>>
&
On Fri, Sep 22, 2017 at 6:03 PM, Kathleen Moriarty
<kathleen.moriarty.i...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Thanks for the input and the offline message, Mary. An offline process is
> needed from what I can tell to use ACME for anything considered a higher
> assurance than a DV cert, is that right?
Hello,
Thank you to the editors and WG for your efforts on
draft-ietf-acme-acme, it's a well written and easy to understand
draft. I do have a few comments, that need to be address by the
editors and SHEPHERD.
Please review the idnits. There are a few warnings that should be
correctable and
Hello,
First, a big thank you to Ted for serving as an ACME chair, bringing
the main draft close to the finish line! Your contribution to the
work and management of ACME is much appreciated!
Thank you to all who volunteered. Yoav Nir will be appointed the
co-chair. For Prague, we'll continue
Hi,
Yes, while your implementation may have to adhere to particular laws or
regulations, we make a point to not enforce any of them in protocol designs.
We may put in controls or features that allow you to decide if you'd like to
adhere to policies such as data retention requirements, but
32 matches
Mail list logo
