At IETF 108, we discussed https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-sipos-acme-dtnnodeid/ The minutes of that discussion are below (thanks again Yaron)
Should we adopt this document? At the meeting there was mild interest to do so. Please reply by end of next week. Brian Sipos on DTN (delay-tolerant networking) Draft Roman: are DTN nodes on the public Internet? Or closed network? Brian: no need for ACME if on a closed network. CA probably integrated in DTN. Sites have gateway nodes into the open Internet. Connecting to a public (not necessarily commercial) CA. Rick (DTN chair): are you offering to publish in ACME as an Experimental doc, or keep it within DTN? Brian: intend to keep in DTN. Use of URI validation is new to ACME. Rick: ACME is possibly a good way to resolve existing IESG discusses. Can take it off-line. Roman: would ACME servers have understanding of DTN identifiers? Brian: they would need to be DTN nodes. Just like the ACME server that implements the SMTP validation draft. Use case is inter-site DTN. Node is accepting bundles from other domains, lower trust exists. Yoav: ACME servers are CAs. They are reluctant to provide service to anything other than the normal web use case. Brian: no expectation of uptake in generic ACME servers. Rich: precedent for non-web use cases [missed specifics]. Rick: DTN is a small focused WG, not sure they have the bandwidth to take it on. Would be happy if ACME does. Brian: and this is so similar to SMTP. YN: hum? Roman: ask re: familiarity. YN: we know the answer. Hum: have you read it? pianissimo. YN: will not ask on adoption. Alexey: ask who is willing to review. Chat: Melinda, Russ, Rich, Alexey, Yoav. YN: let's read, then maybe have a call for adoption.
_______________________________________________ Acme mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/acme
