All, I haven’t seen any reviews of the last draft version -09. I hope that the closer alignment with RFC 8823 makes its understanding and analysis easier.
From: Acme <[email protected]> On Behalf Of Deb Cooley Sent: Tuesday, May 24, 2022 7:39 AM To: IETF ACME <[email protected]>; Brian Sipos <[email protected]> Cc: Roman Danyliw <[email protected]>; Dorothy E Cooley <[email protected]> Subject: [EXT] Re: [Acme] I-D Action: draft-ietf-acme-dtnnodeid-09.txt APL external email warning: Verify sender [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> before clicking links or attachments Did we ever get reviews on the updated draft? If not, can we get some (or revive the) volunteers? Deb Cooley On Mon, Mar 21, 2022 at 7:12 AM Deb Cooley <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > wrote: It is on the agenda. We will ask for volunteers to review. Deb On Sun, Mar 20, 2022 at 5:29 PM Roman Danyliw <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > wrote: Hi! We’re past IETF LC in terms of document processing and -08 and -09 appear to have changed protocol behavior. Since there hasn’t been any discussion about this on the mailing list yet, I’d like to ask the WG to review these changes (https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url1=draft-ietf-acme-dtnnodeid-07 <https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url1=draft-ietf-acme-dtnnodeid-07&url2=draft-ietf-acme-dtnnodeid-09> &url2=draft-ietf-acme-dtnnodeid-09). Please raise any objections by Friday April 1. Helpfully, this document is on the ACME meeting agenda tomorrow at IETF 113. Regards, Roman From: Acme <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > On Behalf Of Brian Sipos Sent: Wednesday, March 2, 2022 11:27 PM To: IETF ACME <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [Acme] I-D Action: draft-ietf-acme-dtnnodeid-09.txt All, I have posted an update to the Node ID Validation document which updates references to now-published DTN RFCs (yay!) and adds algorithm agility for the Key Authorization Digest to avoid the validation method being stuck on SHA-256. It does add a publication dependency on the COSE hash document, but that is in AUTH48 (though it's been stuck in that state for some time now). Comments are welcome and can be discussed at the next IETF. Brian S. On Wed, Mar 2, 2022 at 7:35 PM <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > 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 Environment WG of the IETF. Title : Automated Certificate Management Environment (ACME) Delay-Tolerant Networking (DTN) Node ID Validation Extension Author : Brian Sipos Filename : draft-ietf-acme-dtnnodeid-09.txt Pages : 31 Date : 2022-03-02 Abstract: This document specifies an extension to the Automated Certificate Management Environment (ACME) protocol which allows an ACME server to validate the Delay-Tolerant Networking (DTN) Node ID for an ACME client. The DTN Node ID is encoded as a certificate Subject Alternative Name (SAN) of type otherName with a name form of BundleEID and as an ACME Identifier type "bundleEID". The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-acme-dtnnodeid/ There is also an HTML version available at: https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-acme-dtnnodeid-09.html A diff from the previous version is available at: https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-acme-dtnnodeid-09 Internet-Drafts are also available by rsync at rsync.ietf.org::internet-drafts _______________________________________________ Acme mailing list [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/acme _______________________________________________ Acme mailing list [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/acme
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ Acme mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/acme
