Hi Brian, I don't think we ever really decided what a challenge name in ACME is *supposed* to be - it's merely a string of characters that happen to refer to a particular standard. Given this it's pretty much up to you. If you don't feel very strongly about it leave it as "dtn-nodeid-01", otherwise changing it to "bp-nodeid-00" also seems fine to me.
Q ------------------------------ Any statements contained in this email are personal to the author and are not necessarily the statements of the company unless specifically stated. AS207960 Cyfyngedig, having a registered office at 13 Pen-y-lan Terrace, Caerdydd, Cymru, CF23 9EU, trading as Glauca Digital, is a company registered in Wales under № 12417574 <https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/12417574>, LEI 875500FXNCJPAPF3PD10. ICO register №: ZA782876 <https://ico.org.uk/ESDWebPages/Entry/ZA782876>. UK VAT №: GB378323867. EU VAT №: EU372013983. Turkish VAT №: 0861333524. South Korean VAT №: 522-80-03080. AS207960 Ewrop OÜ, having a registered office at Lääne-Viru maakond, Tapa vald, Porkuni küla, Lossi tn 1, 46001, trading as Glauca Digital, is a company registered in Estonia under № 16755226. Estonian VAT №: EE102625532. Glauca Digital and the Glauca logo are registered trademarks in the UK, under № UK00003718474 and № UK00003718468, respectively. On Thu, 24 Oct 2024 at 20:57, Sipos, Brian J. <brian.si...@jhuapl.edu> wrote: > All, > > I have asked for a short slot at the IETF 121 ACME WG meeting but I will > pose this question ahead on the mailing list: > > The current DTN Node ID validation draft [1] uses validation method name > “dtn-nodeid-01” but this is slightly inconsistent with the existing > registered validation method names [2] in that the first part of the name > is neither a protocol (e.g. “dns” or “http”) nor a transport type (e.g. > “email”) name. For consistency’s sake because this validation method is > strongly influenced by the email validation of RFC 8823 and uses BPv7 as > its challenge/response transport should it instead be named something like > “bp-nodeid-00”? This numbering would also hint at the category of the draft > being experimental. > > > > There is little installed base for this method so adjusting the name will > not have an affect outside of prototypes. But this also might be something > better seen as happening before IESG review. I don’t have strong opinions > about this other than wanting to be consistent with the other method names. > > > > Any thoughts? > > Brian S. > > > > [1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-acme-dtnnodeid/ > > [2] > https://www.iana.org/assignments/acme/acme.xhtml#acme-validation-methods > > > _______________________________________________ > Acme mailing list -- acme@ietf.org > To unsubscribe send an email to acme-le...@ietf.org >
_______________________________________________ Acme mailing list -- acme@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to acme-le...@ietf.org
