Re: [Acme] Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-ietf-acme-star-09: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

2019-10-10 Thread Benjamin Kaduk
On Tue, Oct 08, 2019 at 10:07:12AM +, Thomas Fossati wrote: > Hi Ben, > > On 05/10/2019, 02:07, "Benjamin Kaduk" wrote: > > On Thu, Oct 03, 2019 at 05:33:49PM +, Thomas Fossati wrote: I'm > > trying to think about the risk that a future use case for > > "allow-certificate-get" might want

Re: [Acme] Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-ietf-acme-star-09: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

2019-10-08 Thread Thomas Fossati
Hi Ben, On 05/10/2019, 02:07, "Benjamin Kaduk" wrote: > On Thu, Oct 03, 2019 at 05:33:49PM +, Thomas Fossati wrote: I'm > trying to think about the risk that a future use case for > "allow-certificate-get" might want slightly different semantics for > when it's used, or need the certificate t

Re: [Acme] Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-ietf-acme-star-09: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

2019-10-04 Thread Benjamin Kaduk
On Thu, Oct 03, 2019 at 05:33:49PM +, Thomas Fossati wrote: > Hi Ben, > > Upon further review, I agree with your assessment on the first part of > your DISCUSS, which is a relief. > > I'm addressing your COMMENTs [1] and the second part of your DISCUSS > [2] that are for the most part straigh

Re: [Acme] Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-ietf-acme-star-09: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

2019-10-03 Thread Thomas Fossati
Hi Ben, Upon further review, I agree with your assessment on the first part of your DISCUSS, which is a relief. I'm addressing your COMMENTs [1] and the second part of your DISCUSS [2] that are for the most part straightforward. I have a few things I'd like to discuss further though. See below.

Re: [Acme] Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-ietf-acme-star-09: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

2019-10-03 Thread Benjamin Kaduk
On Thu, Oct 03, 2019 at 12:59:47PM +, Thomas Fossati wrote: > Hi Ben, > > First of all thank you very much for this excellent review. > > On your DISCUSS points: > > On 02/10/2019, 19:06, "Benjamin Kaduk via Datatracker" > wrote: > > RFC 8555 (and the IANA registry) list the 'status' field

Re: [Acme] Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-ietf-acme-star-09: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

2019-10-03 Thread Thomas Fossati
Hi Ben, First of all thank you very much for this excellent review. On your DISCUSS points: On 02/10/2019, 19:06, "Benjamin Kaduk via Datatracker" wrote: > RFC 8555 (and the IANA registry) list the 'status' field of the order > object as not configurable, yet we propose to configure it (in > Se

[Acme] Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-ietf-acme-star-09: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

2019-10-02 Thread Benjamin Kaduk via Datatracker
Benjamin Kaduk has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-acme-star-09: Discuss When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer to https://ww