Re: [Acme] Client draft

Kathleen, Here are a few comments, let me know if you have questions/concerns/etc. I'd be happy to clarify. Deb Cooley deco...@nsa.gov 0. So the trick here is in the original ACME spec, they could rely on DNS registration, as yucky as it is (w/out DNSSEC), at least it exists. In the c

Re: [Acme] [Anima] ACME integrations with BRSKI and the cmcRA EKU

#x27;t know how happy I would be to see cmcRA be an option in an auto issued certificate (i.e. via ACME). I'm not sure how that would work. We need to know the entity holding the key/certificate is actually supposed to have it. These are hard problems, for sure. Deb Cooley NSA for real

[Acme] comments on: draft-ietf-acme-integrations-03.txt

ted? Deb Cooley, NSA ___ Acme mailing list Acme@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/acme

Re: [Acme] comments on: draft-ietf-acme-integrations-03.txt

Did anyone see this? Or did it get lost in the shuffle? Deb Cooley On Fri, Mar 19, 2021 at 6:46 AM Deb Cooley wrote: > I thought this draft was pretty easy to follow, and I just have a few > minor comments. Note: I am probably reviewing this from the point of > view of an integrat

Re: [Acme] comments on: draft-ietf-acme-integrations-03.txt

e. You are pretty soft on the language 'could use' isn't exactly requiring it, but merely allowing it. Deb Cooley, NSA On Tue, Jun 8, 2021 at 12:06 PM Owen Friel (ofriel) wrote: > Yes Deb, it did get lost in the shuffle. > > > > See inline. > > > > &

Re: [Acme] comments on: draft-ietf-acme-integrations-03.txt

Michael, In my world (government PKI systems), the RA doesn't get to do that. Either the CSR is accepted or it is rejected. The CA has a profile it follows, if the CSR is missing things, the CA adds them before the certificate is signed. The RA can do none of that. In our case, most RAs are act

Re: [Acme] comments on: draft-ietf-acme-integrations-03.txt

ee to automate what we do manually today. Michael Richardson's 'civil serpents' made me laugh. Although most of those 'serpents' are military or contractors. In the end, the easier we can make it for them to do the 'right' thing, the better off we will be. Deb

Re: [Acme] Changes in ACME WG leadership team

Thanks! I’m looking forward to contributing. Many thanks to Rich Salz for many years of hard work! Deb Cooley > On Jul 9, 2021, at 2:57 PM, Yoav Nir wrote: > > Welcome aboard, Deb! > > > >> On 9 Jul 2021, at 19:26, Roman Danyliw wrote: >> >> Hi! >

[Acme] Agenda items

work? Or are we almost done here? Deb Cooley deco...@nsa.gov ___ Acme mailing list Acme@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/acme

Re: [Acme] Agenda items

This is your reminder to let us know if you are interested in presenting. We need to get this sorted soon... Deb Cooley deco...@nsa.gov On Thu, Jul 22, 2021 at 4:08 PM Deb Cooley wrote: > There are a couple of items that should probably be discussed. If you are > interested in being ad

[Acme] minutes for IETF 111 posted

Minutes for IETF 111 have been posted @ https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/minutes-111-acme/ (yes it took Deb a couple of tries whatever) If you have corrections/changes/modifications, please send them on the list. Thank you, Deb and Yoav ___ Acme ma

Re: [Acme] acme interim

Currently 3 people have voted on the Doodle poll. Less than inspiring, in my opinion. Please let us know if you can/want to attend. If you would rather reply to this message instead of the poll, that is fine too. You have until 10 Sep... Deb Cooley On Wed, Sep 1, 2021 at 9:55 AM Cooley

Re: [Acme] acme interim

ote to the chairs. If you have a new work proposal, please send a note to the chairs. Many thanks and we will 'see' you on 29 Sep. Deb Cooley On Tue, Sep 7, 2021 at 5:58 AM Deb Cooley wrote: > Currently 3 people have voted on the Doodle poll. Less than inspiring, in > my opinion.

[Acme] acme interim

business (AOB) and/or recap - All - 10 min I'll upload this too (as soon as I figure out how). Deb Cooley (and Yoav Nir) ___ Acme mailing list Acme@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/acme

Re: [Acme] acme interim

a minute taker, we would be forever grateful. Deb (and Yoav) On Fri, Sep 24, 2021 at 12:08 PM Deb Cooley wrote: > ACME Interim Meeting, Wednesday 29 Sep 2021 from 18:00 to 19:00 UTC > > Meetecho link: > https://meetings.conf.meetecho.com/interim/?short=b6634a5b-f143-4a07-b745-

[Acme] Agenda items for IETF 112

acme, We have a meeting time scheduled for Thursday, 11 November 2021 from 1430-1530 (UTC). Please send in your agenda topics along with how much time you think you will need to: acme-cha...@ietf.org by 4 November 2021. wishing we were actually in Madrid, Deb and Yoav __

[Acme] IETF 112 acme agenda

Here is the agenda for Thursday's session. Comments and revisions welcome. Automated Certificate Management Environment (acme) IETF 112, Thursday, 11 November 2021 1430-1530 UTC MeetEcho link: https://m

[Acme] draft minutes for IETF 112 acme meeting

Thank you to all who participated! The draft minutes are here: https://notes.ietf.org/notes-ietf-112-acme# Please review and verify they are correct. I'll post the final version, probably later next week. Deb and Yoav. ___ Acme mailing list Acme@ietf

[Acme] comments on: draft-ietf-acme-integrations-05

early that is wrong). I know nothing about TEAP, but does the server initiate normally? (I’m used to seeing client-initiated exchanges) And this is not for this document, per se, but does TEAP use TLS1.2 (it doesn’t look like TLS 1.3 – change cipher spec, for example)? Deb Cooley deco...@ns

Re: [Acme] acme-subdomains RFC8499 vs. CA/B terminology

Sounds like a good path forward. Deb Cooley deco...@nsa.gov On Fri, Dec 10, 2021 at 9:04 AM Daniel Migault wrote: > I also prefer 8499 terminology. > Yours, > Daniel > > On Fri, Dec 10, 2021 at 4:40 AM Owen Friel (ofriel) 40cisco@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote: > >> I me

[Acme] subdomain draft -01

Here are two ridiculously simple comments - both are merely typos. Section 2: CA definition typo: s/Roots CAs/Root CAs. Section 5, page 14, step 3: Typo. The server replies w/ an identifier of " sub1.example.org" instead of “sub2.example.com”. Deb Cooley deco.

[Acme] IETF 113 agenda items

acme, We have a meeting time scheduled for Monday, 21 March 2022, 1300-1400 Please send in your agenda topics along with how much time you think you will need to: acme-cha...@ietf.org by 14 March 2022. We will likely have one chair in person (unless things go sideways) and one remote. Should b

[Acme] agenda

The agenda is posted (copied below) A couple of notes: 1. Meetecho will have two tools - a mobile phone icon for use at the venue (without sound), and another icon for remote use. 2. The microphone queue will be via Meetecho - even if one is actually in the room. (there will be a camera on the

Re: [Acme] I-D Action: draft-ietf-acme-dtnnodeid-09.txt

It is on the agenda. We will ask for volunteers to review. Deb On Sun, Mar 20, 2022 at 5:29 PM Roman Danyliw 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

[Acme] note takers

Don't wait until the last minute volunteer now to take notes. the acme chairs. ___ Acme mailing list Acme@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/acme

[Acme] ACME WG report

The ACME working group met on Monday afternoon with about 10 people in person and another 12-15 online. Work: 2 drafts are in IESG Evaluation: ACME Authority Token + ACME Authority Token TNAuthlist, small changes required. Authors have been contacted. 1 experimental draft in IESG evaluation: dr

Re: [Acme] note takers

14 AM Deb Cooley wrote: > Don't wait until the last minute volunteer now to take notes. > > the acme chairs. > ___ Acme mailing list Acme@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/acme

[Acme] Call for adoption of draft-aaron-acme-ari-02

? Please reply to this message within the next two weeks, by Tuesday, 7 June 2022 to voice your support or opposition to adoption. On behalf of the ACME WG Chairs, Deb Cooley ___ Acme mailing list Acme@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/acme

Re: [Acme] I-D Action: draft-ietf-acme-dtnnodeid-09.txt

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 wrote: > It is on the agenda. We will ask for volunteers to review. > > Deb > > On Sun, Mar 20, 2022 at 5:29 PM Roman

[Acme] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-acme-integrations-07

Title: ACME Integrations Authors: O.Friel, R.Barnes, R. Shekh-Yusef, M.Richardson Datatracker: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-acme-integrations/ This document outlines multiple advanced use cases and integr

[Acme] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-acme-subdomains-03

Title: ACME for Subdomains Authors: O.Friel, R.Barnes, T.Hollebeek, M.Richardson Datatracker: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-acme-subdomains/ This document outlines how ACME can be used by a client to obtain a certificate for a subdomain identifier from a certification authority.

Re: [Acme] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-acme-subdomains-03

A couple of more days for this WGLC and crickets For the ACME WG chairs, DebCooley On Thu, May 26, 2022 at 7:03 AM Deb Cooley wrote: > Title: ACME for Subdomains > > Authors: O.Friel, R.Barnes, T.Hollebeek, M.Richardson > > Datatracker: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/

Re: [Acme] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-acme-subdomains-03

We've seen two responses to the WGLC (one with nits). Can we get a few more reviews? From people that are not authors? For the ACME WG chairs, Deb Cooley On Mon, Jun 6, 2022 at 12:36 PM Deb Cooley wrote: > A couple of more days for this WGLC and crickets > > For the

Re: [Acme] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-acme-integrations-07

Thanks for the two reviews w/ comments. When the authors have addressed the comments, we can issue a short WGLC. For the ACME chairs, Deb Cooley On Fri, May 27, 2022 at 9:44 AM Carl Wallace wrote: > I’ll reply here to add one comment. The introduction of the potential for > errors

[Acme] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-acme-integrations-08

Let's do another WGLC, if that's ok. Please respond by 15 July (after the ID draft cutoff, but hopefully we won't need another version). Title: ACME Integrations Authors: O.Friel, R.Barnes, R. Shekh-Yusef, M.Richardson Datatracker: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-acme-integrations

Re: [Acme] Call for adoption of draft-aaron-acme-ari-02

Thanks to Rich, Melinda and Peter for voicing your opinion to adopt this draft. We would like it if a few more people would read this draft and state whether you think it should be adopted (or not). After the positive response in Vienna we were a little surprised to see so few responses here. Fo

[Acme] IETF 114 Agenda items

acme, We have a meeting time scheduled for Thursday, July 28, 2022, 1600-1700 Please send in your agenda topics along with how much time you think you will need to: acme-cha...@ietf.org by 15 July 2022. We might have both chairs in person (unless things go sideways). Almost like the before tim

Re: [Acme] IETF 114 Agenda items

New work - draft-bweeks-acme-device-attest (Weeks) - 15 min AOB - 10 min On Tue, Jul 5, 2022 at 2:20 PM Deb Cooley wrote: > acme, > > We have a meeting time scheduled for Thursday, July 28, 2022, 1600-1700 > > Please send in your agenda topics along with how much time you thin

[Acme] meeting notes for IETF 114

We are looking for someone to take notes for the acme mtg today. Deb Cooley ___ Acme mailing list Acme@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/acme

[Acme] draft-aaron-acme-ari call for adoption

At the working group session today, we did a quick count for those who agreed to adopt this draft. This message is to follow up on this list. If anyone disagrees with adoption of this draft, please speak up by 12 August. Many thanks, Deb Cooley

Re: [Acme] [EXT] Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-acme-dtnnodeid-09.txt

Dear ACME, We need to get some eyes on this draft - draft-ietf-acme-dtnnodeid. If you have time, please take a look and let us know whether you think it is ready (or make comments). We are hoping to get this draft finished! Deb Cooley On Tue, May 24, 2022 at 5:29 PM Sipos, Brian J. wrote

Re: [Acme] [EXT] Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-acme-dtnnodeid-09.txt

A reminder: we need a few more eyes on this draft to move it forward. Deb (and Yoav) On Thu, Jul 28, 2022 at 8:19 PM Deb Cooley wrote: > Dear ACME, > > We need to get some eyes on this draft - draft-ietf-acme-dtnnodeid. If > you have time, please take a look and let us know wheth

[Acme] Authority Token WGLC

pool of reviewers a bit). We need to see if we can push these forward again. The review deadline is 6 Sep 2022. Deb Cooley acme co-chair ___ Acme mailing list Acme@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/acme

Re: [Acme] Opsdir telechat review of draft-ietf-acme-dtnnodeid-10

Linda, I'm now very confused. The original topic was comments on a DTN acme draft. How did we get to discussing Virtual Network IDs of SD-WAN edge devices? Do you want to get X.509 certificates for these devices? Or do you have something else in mind to validate these devices? Deb Coole

[Acme] IETF 115 Agenda items

acme, We have a meeting time scheduled for Thursday, Nov 10, 2022, 1530-1630 (meeting time/UTC) Please send in your agenda topics along with how much time you think you will need to: acme-cha...@ietf.org by 3 Nov 2022. We should have one chair in person and one remote (unless things go sideways

Re: [Acme] [URL Verdict: Neutral][Non-DoD Source] Re: IETF 115 Agenda items

If you are briefing, please post your briefing to the datatracker, or send it to the chairs as soon as possible. Here is our current agenda: -- Automated Certificate Management Environment (acme) IETF 115, Thursday, 28 July 2022 1530-1630 UTC, Room: Mezza

Re: [Acme] [URL Verdict: Neutral][Non-DoD Source] Re: IETF 115 Agenda items

That, of course, should be Thursday, 10 Nov 2022. apologies. On Tue, Nov 8, 2022 at 9:09 AM Deb Cooley wrote: > If you are briefing, please post your briefing to the datatracker, or send > it to the chairs as soon as possible. > > > Here is our

[Acme] minutes from today

Are here: https://notes.ietf.org/notes-ietf-115-acme?both Comments, corrections can be sent to the chairs. I'd like to post these early next week. Deb ___ Acme mailing list Acme@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/acme

[Acme] Call for adoption for draft-bweeks-acme-device-attest

This will be a three week call for adoption ending on 6 Dec. (because of holidays in the US). Please speak up either for or against adopting this draft. Thanks, Deb and Yoav. ___ Acme mailing list Acme@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/acm

Re: [Acme] Call for adoption for draft-bweeks-acme-device-attest

Adoption it is. Stay tuned for the updated draft. Deb On Thu, Dec 1, 2022 at 2:46 PM Sean Turner wrote: > I read it and support adoption. > > spt > > > On Nov 15, 2022, at 13:01, Deb Cooley wrote: > > > > This will be a three week call for adoption ending on 6

[Acme] draft-todo-chariton-dns-account-01

This will be a 3/4 week call for adoption ending on 4 Jan 2023 (because of holidays). Please speak up either for or against adopting this draft. Thanks, Deb and Yoav. ___ Acme mailing list Acme@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/acme

Re: [Acme] draft-todo-chariton-dns-account-01

While I know it is the holidays for many, the call for adoption will end on Thursday (4 Jan), so far we have seen no responses... Deb On Sat, Dec 10, 2022 at 6:00 AM Deb Cooley wrote: > This will be a 3/4 week call for adoption ending on 4 Jan 2023 (because of > holidays). Please sp

Re: [Acme] Comment on draft-ietf-acme-subdomains-06: How about using wildcard certificates for subdomains?

RFC8555 already addresses wildcards, no? Deb Cooley ACME chair deco...@radium.ncsc.mil On Tue, Jan 31, 2023 at 7:11 AM Yanlei(Ray) wrote: > Hi， > > > > I'm new to this group and sorry for the late comment. I just saw this > draft and have an idea after reading. I&

[Acme] IETF 116

The preliminary acme timeslot is 1500-1600 on Thursday. Please send in your agenda topics along with how much time you think you will need to: acme-cha...@ietf.org by 14 Mar 2023. We should have one chair in person and one remote (unless things go sideways). Deb Cooley for the acme chairs

Re: [Acme] IETF 116

you have comments/additions/corrections. It can be easily updated. Also, if you agreed to speak, please upload your briefing materials to the datatracker page. Deb and Yoav acme chairs On Sat, Feb 25, 2023 at 7:36 AM Deb Cooley wrote: > The preliminary acme timeslot is 1500-1600 on Thurs

[Acme] note takers

We are looking for volunteers to take notes for Thursday's meeting. It isn't a hard job... but we can't meet w/out someone doing that job. Thanks in advance, Deb (and Yoav) ___ Acme mailing list Acme@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/acme

Re: [Acme] note takers

later (note I’ve not done note taking at IETF > before). > > I will need coverage during the short period I’ll be talking. However > Antonis is going to do the majority of the presentation so it should only > be a few minutes. > > On Tue, Mar 28, 2023 at 14:47 Deb Cooley wro

Re: [Acme] [EXTERNAL] Re: note takers

Thank you all! Deb On Wed, Mar 29, 2023 at 12:17 AM Mike Ounsworth wrote: > I’m also happy to take notes. > > > > --- > > *Mike* Ounsworth > > > > *From:* Acme *On Behalf Of * Aaron Gable > *Sent:* Wednesday, March 29, 2023 8:33 AM > *To:* Deb Cooley

[Acme] change from Informational to Proposed Standard

ACME, We are considering converting draft-ietf-acme-integrations from informational to standards track. If anyone objects, please reply on this list by 5 May 2023. Thanks, Deb and Yoav ___ Acme mailing list Acme@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/lis

Re: [Acme] change from Informational to Proposed Standard

apologies, this got away from me. I believe that is enough agreement on the list. Please resubmit as proposed standard. Deb (and Yoav). On Sat, Apr 22, 2023 at 8:58 PM Benjamin Kaduk wrote: > On Sat, Apr 22, 2023 at 05:56:35PM -0400, Michael Richardson wrote: > > > > Benjamin Kaduk wrote: >

Re: [Acme] DNS-ACCOUNT-01 Updates

problems. The only question is what to actually call it. Deb Cooley (no hats) deco...@radium.ncsc.mil On Fri, May 19, 2023 at 8:38 AM Sean Dilda wrote: > I don't spend a lot of time on the Let's Encrypt forums, but I do maintain > an internal ACME server and work with the IT staff t

[Acme] Call for adoption of draft-misell-acme-onion-02

This will be a two week call for adoption ending on 16 June. Please speak up either for or against adopting this draft. Thanks, Deb ___ Acme mailing list Acme@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/acme

Re: [Acme] Call for adoption of draft-misell-acme-onion-02

t; for .onion due to the need to operate a Tor client; these same CAs may have > been willing to implement ONION-CSR-01, but now will not due to the CAA > mechanism. > > Thanks, > Aaron > > On Sun, Jun 4, 2023 at 4:07 AM Deb Cooley wrote: > >> This will be a two

Re: [Acme] Practical concerns of draft-ietf-acme-ari

not called the 'acme server' working group. The working group is only as sleepy as we make it. I will say that reading pages of a single message serves only to bury the lead. Crafting opinions that are clear and concise get quicker results. We are all busy people. Deb Cooley deco...@

[Acme] IETF 117 Agenda items

usually re-opens early during the meeting week). Hoping to see you all IRL in San Francisco! Deb Cooley for the acme chairs ___ Acme mailing list Acme@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/acme

Re: [Acme] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8555 (7565)

Please mark this as verified. thanks, Deb Cooley On Tue, Jul 18, 2023 at 7:27 PM Paul Breed wrote: > RFC7518 is pretty clear. > Maybe the correct action is just to Remove the comment in its entirety. > > > On Thu, Jul 13, 2023 at 4:09 PM Corey Bonnell > wrote: > >>

Re: [Acme] Practical concerns of draft-ietf-acme-ari

nip. Issuer key hash: Is this not in the Authority Key ID extension? Or is this extension not used? If these things are not the same, my recommendation would be to use Authority Key ID value as a way to ID the issuing CA. Deb Cooley, no hats On Thu, Jul 20, 2023 at 2:16 A

Re: [Acme] FW: [EXTERNAL] New Version Notification for draft-vanbrouwershaven-acme-auto-discovery-00.txt

Apologies for missing this ask. Indeed I can add you to the agenda. Who is briefing and how long do you think you need? Deb On Tue, Jul 18, 2023 at 7:54 PM Mike Ounsworth wrote: > @chairs since the agenda doesn't look particularly full, and we asked > before the cutoff, could we get this on t

Re: [Acme] IETF 117 Agenda items

If you have requested an agenda time, please submit briefings as soon as possible (if you haven't already done so - TY Q). We are meeting early in the week (!). You should be able to submit them to the ACME data tracker section, or you can send it to the chairs and we can post it. Deb C

Re: [Acme] Proposal: ACME Profiles

Aaron, Also (very) late to the game, and my experience is mostly with private CAs: We have used certificate profiles for decades, but not with ACME. These profiles are currently specified in a document called 'certificate profiles'. Even in our most widely used systems (that issue to more than

[Acme] agenda items for IETF 118 and important dates

All, The preliminary agenda has acme scheduled to meet on Wednesday from 1300-1400 (Prague time). The agenda will be final on Friday (13 Oct). If you would like to present during that time slot, please contact the chairs ( acme-cha...@ietf.org ). Also the Internet Draft submission cut-off is 23

Re: [Acme] [EXTERNAL] agenda items for IETF 118 and important dates

anbrouwershaven-acme-auto-discovery/ > > --- > > *Mike* Ounsworth > > > > *From:* Acme *On Behalf Of * Deb Cooley > *Sent:* Monday, October 9, 2023 9:22 AM > *To:* IETF ACME > *Cc:* acme-...@ietf.org; > *Subject:* [EXTERNAL] [Acme] agenda items for IETF 11

[Acme] ACME minutes for IETF 118

These are posted here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/minutes-118-acme-202311081200/ If you have comments/proposed changes, please reply here, or to the chairs. Deb Cooley ___ Acme mailing list Acme@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/acme

[Acme] WGLC for draft-ietf-acme-onion

The ACME WG discussed this document at IETF 118, and the people in the room felt it was ready for WG Last Call. Title: ACME Extensions for ".onion" Special-Use Domain Names URL: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-acme-onion/ Please express whether you think this document is ready for p

Re: [Acme] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8555 (5861)

Happy New Year! I'm going through acme's errata. This one was reported, but crickets on any responses from the authors (or others). It looks like a sensible addition to me, but I'd like confirmation. Thanks Deb On Mon, Sep 23, 2019 at 8:50 AM RFC Errata System wrote: > The following errata r

Re: [Acme] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8555 (6103)

This errata also had no responses. In this case, I'd suggest rejecting it, or making it editorial. I don't think it affects how anyone would implement or interpret the RFC. But again, I'd like confirmation (or correction). Deb On Tue, Apr 14, 2020 at 9:19 AM RFC Errata System wrote: > The f

Re: [Acme] [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC8555 (6104)

Yet another errata My old eyes don't see what the change is. All the brackets look lined up the same in both original and corrected. If someone can point out where the change is, we can move this along. Or we reject it. Deb On Tue, Apr 14, 2020 at 9:19 AM RFC Errata System wrote: > The f

Re: [Acme] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8555 (6317)

This is the last errata I'll pester you with today. This one seems sensible. Please confirm or enlighten me. Deb On Fri, Oct 23, 2020 at 7:07 PM RFC Errata System wrote: > The following errata report has been submitted for RFC8555, > "Automatic Certificate Management Environment (ACME)". > >

Re: [Acme] [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC8555 (6104)

I'll mark it as Verified (it was Editorial already). TY On Wed, Jan 3, 2024 at 3:32 PM Jacob Hoffman-Andrews wrote: > This is about indenting and I suspect email display clients are eating the > leading spaces. Here's what it looks like with underscores: > > Old: > > ​___submit another order co

Re: [Acme] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8555 (5861)

Thanks. I'll mark this as 'Rejected'. If Owen wants to resubmit it taking this into account, he can. Deb On Wed, Jan 3, 2024 at 3:28 PM Jacob Hoffman-Andrews wrote: > This overspecifies things. When someone requests to create a new > authorization object (or requests to create a new order obj

Re: [Acme] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8555 (6364)

Today's Errata This looks editorial to me. Opinions? Deb On Wed, Dec 23, 2020 at 11:22 AM RFC Errata System < rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org> wrote: > The following errata report has been submitted for RFC8555, > "Automatic Certificate Management Environment (ACME)". > > ---

Re: [Acme] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8555 (6843)

Is this still accurate? I'll mark it as 'Verified' and hold it for update. Note: I'm stripping the addresses on these a little - c...@letsencrypt.org is bouncing, and Ben isn't Sec AD currently. Oh and the chairs have to approve posts with more than a few addresses listed Deb On Thu, Fe

Re: [Acme] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8555 (6950)

opinions? Does entropy have to be measured as a base64 encoded value? Deb On Mon, May 2, 2022 at 4:31 AM RFC Errata System wrote: > The following errata report has been submitted for RFC8555, > "Automatic Certificate Management Environment (ACME)". > > -- >

Re: [Acme] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8555 (6950)

dding, non-base54 characters). Let me know if you have other thoughts. Deb On Thu, Jan 4, 2024 at 7:41 AM Deb Cooley wrote: > opinions? Does entropy have to be measured as a base64 encoded value? > > Deb > > On Mon, May 2, 2022 at 4:31 AM RFC Errata System < > rfc-edi...@

Re: [Acme] [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC8823 (7508)

This one came is as Editorial and was changed to Technical. I think we should make it Editorial. There needs to be a complete list of places where .com and .org are swapped. At that point it can be 'Verified'. Deb On Tue, Oct 10, 2023 at 7:52 PM Chris Smiley wrote: > > Hi Roman, > > We are

Re: [Acme] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8555 (6950)

quite keen on this stuff, and do tend to > like rigour in specifications to close off implementation misunderstandings > loopholes. > > best > > Lloyd Wood > lloyd.w...@yahoo.co.uk > > On Friday, January 5, 2024, 21:14, Deb Cooley > wrote: > > I did some reading

Re: [Acme] I-D Action: draft-ietf-acme-dtnnodeid-12.txt

This is the beginning of a two week WGLC for this draft, which will end on 26 Jan. Please review and comment. Deb C ACME WG Chair On Thu, Jan 11, 2024 at 4:26 PM wrote: > Internet-Draft draft-ietf-acme-dtnnodeid-12.txt is now available. It is a > work > item of the Automated Certificate Manage

Re: [Acme] [Errata Held for Document Update] RFC8555 (6843)

I had this marked as 'hold for update' (vs. 'verified'). I can't tell from the discussion how you think we should be handling it. I'm also not sure why .dev domains are being discussed. How are .dev domains obtaining test certificates (because one should not be issuing operational certificates,

Re: [Acme] [Errata Held for Document Update] RFC8555 (6843)

d concrete examples within scope. Deb ACME chair On Mon, Jan 15, 2024 at 12:54 AM Rob Sayre wrote: > > > On Sun, Jan 14, 2024 at 9:12 PM Aaron Gable wrote: > >> On Sun, Jan 14, 2024, 10:12 Rob Sayre wrote: >> >>> On Sun, Jan 14, 2024 at 3:01 AM Deb Cooley wrote: >

Re: [Acme] [Errata Held for Document Update] RFC8555 (6843)

Again 'hold for update' is the only logical choice. We aren't fixing vague language with an errata. When this RFC comes up for update, I hope you will participate. Deb On Mon, Jan 15, 2024 at 7:41 AM Rob Sayre wrote: > On Mon, Jan 15, 2024 at 3:42 AM Deb Cooley wrote:

Re: [Acme] I-D Action: draft-ietf-acme-dtnnodeid-12.txt

Endpoint' sb 'a Bundle Endpoint'. Section 2, para 4, last sentence: typo: 'via scheme-specific means [is] authorized'? Deb Cooley no hats On Mon, Jan 29, 2024 at 7:18 PM Stephen Farrell wrote: > > Hiya, > > On 12/01/2024 12:00, Deb Cooley wrote: > &g

Re: [Acme] I-D Action: draft-ietf-acme-dtnnodeid-12.txt

I'm going to extend this WGLC a couple of more days to 2 Feb 2024. I'm hoping to see a couple of more reviews, please. Deb Cooley On Fri, Jan 12, 2024 at 7:00 AM Deb Cooley wrote: > This is the beginning of a two week WGLC for this draft, which will end on > 26 Jan. >

Re: [Acme] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8555 (5861)

The ADs can edit the language of an errata. If we can agree on the language, they can modify the errata and then mark it as Verified. Below is what I have for this: -- Errata old: Section 7.4.1, It should say: If a server receives a newAuthz request for

Re: [Acme] acme-device-attest expired

I know Brandon has been busy, but I don't know his plans for this draft. Maybe his use case has changed? I've cc'd him on this message. Note: acme is a 'working group', to get a draft through the process people have to be willing to work on the draft (vice merely following). Also drafts can cer

[Acme] IETF 119

If you would like to present at IETF 119 (either virtual or IRL), please let the chairs know. The details of the meeting day/time are below. We currently have requests for the discovery drafts, and I'm guessing the attestation draft (although I'd like that confirmed). IETF 119 acme Session 1 (1

[Acme] IETF 119 Agenda

This is what I have currently. We have a 90 min time slot (no idea why), so there is time to talk about other work/drafts. I'm happy to make updates. Deb - Automated Certificate Management Environment (acme) IETF 119, Thursday, 21 March 2

Re: [Acme] IETF 119 Agenda

) - 10 min - draft-sweet-iot-acme (Sweet - remote) - 10 min - draft-vanbrouwershaven-acme-auto-discovery and - draft-vanbrouwershaver-acme-client-discovery (Ounsworth) - 15 min AOB - 10 min - On Thu, Mar 7, 2024 at 7

Re: [Acme] IETF 119 Agenda

ount-01, and let me know if you have any questions or concerns > about this so far! > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-acme-scoped-dns-challenges/ > > Cheers! > > > On Thu, Mar 7, 2024 at 11:31 AM Deb Cooley wrote: > >> Attached is an agenda update. I

[Acme] IETF 119 briefings and agenda items

acme! Meeting week is almost here, hopefully your travel plans are going smoothly. Don't forget to post your briefings under the meeting materials link (or email them to the chairs). I'm happy to add a discussion item for discussing an 8555bis document, or it can be covered in AOB. [Yoav will b

[Acme] Re: More detailed checking interval in ARI

Aaron, You can issue a new version of the draft, even as it sits in my queue. I'd prefer you do that before I start my review. Deb On Mon, Nov 4, 2024 at 11:18 PM Aaron Gable wrote: > Thanks Yoav! > > I've already spoken with Jacob about this change offline, and plan to > bring it up as part

  1   2   >