On 6/17/22 3:48 PM, Aaron Gable wrote:
It's not my experience that RFCs in this space dedicate significant space in their text to discussing alternative designs, but if others would like to see a section like that added to the draft I'm happy to oblige.
That discussion needs to take place on the mailing list, and it may be that discussion leads to protocol changes (probably more common than not), but I think a specification needs to be a specification. Anyway, LE is dealing with scaling issues that most of us don't have to face, and I am unsurprised to see that reflected in their proposals. These issues may become more common as certificate lifetimes continue to shrink and while I tend to (strongly) favor avoiding complexity, sometimes it can't be avoided and in this case I'm happy to see proposals that are going to be robust in the face of changes in the PKI environment. I support adoption of this document with the protocol proposal it contains being used as a starting point for specification. I'm happy to review but personally I don't plan to implement. Melinda -- Melinda Shore [email protected] Software longa, hardware brevis _______________________________________________ Acme mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/acme
