Hi, Again.
On 7 Oct 2024, at 20:56, Yoav Nir wrote:
> Hi, all
>
> This begins a working group last call for the ARI draft [1]
>
> If you haven’t done so recently, please read the latest (-05) version of the
> draft, and send comments to the list.
>
> Due to the Jewish holidays and my upcomi
Hi, folks.
The subject draft was approved in the ACME group back in 2021. Since then it
has been waiting on a dependency from the DTN group.
This is finally resolved, and our (former) AD asked us to re-confirm consensus
before proceeding it.
If you have any objectsions to having this draft pr
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", otherwis
Q Misell wrote:
> 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.
While the thing being authorized is a DTN BundleEID, it seems that the
transport used for
Hi Meiling,
>> Problem: Certificate forgery issue
It’s not exactly about certificate forgery. It’s about issuing certificates to
posture/trustworthiness-checked accessing devices, more like an authorization
challenge. So maybe this answers Q1?
>> The certificate verifier verifies that the holder
