Hello,
MAY DIWALI FILL YOU WITH ENTHUSIASM, AND NEW YEAR WITH BRIGHT HOPES,
TO TAKE YOU TO GREATER HEIGHTS WHERE EVEN SKY IS NOT THE LIMIT. HAPPY
DIWALI AND PROSPEROUS NEW YEAR!
Deepen Dhulla / Director & CTO
+91-9320214357
TechnoInfotech,
A div. of Technofinvestrade (I) Pvt. Ltd.
2nd Floor, Manu Mansion , S.B.Road,Fort , Mumbai 400001,Maharashtra,
India
--- Original message follows ---
Subject: [Acme] CA/B forum-BR's validation classification for CAA
validationmethods (RFC8657)
From: "Seo Suchan"
To: [email protected]
Date: 21-10-2022 15:48
As this is already binding classification for TLS certificate
industry,
It's natural to use this classifiaction for CAA records for set CAA
record of validation, but not sure this kind of one-liner document
will fly:
"validationmethod lable br-N means it allows cerficiate validation
method 3.2.2.4.N in CA/B
BR(https://cabforum.org/baseline-requirements-documents/)"
the problem I see already:
1. too short.
2. it just pushes to look at 3rd party document outside of ietf
control
3. while this is ammendment for rfc from acme working group this
itself
will make entire document outside scope of acme (lamps working group
would be better suited, where CAA itself is from)
wonder if it better contect CA.B forum and ask to build one on their
side or so be better?
_______________________________________________
Acme mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/acme
_______________________________________________
Acme mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/acme
