Esko Dijk wrote:
> Small addendum: Even if RFC 6066 would allow IP literals in a SNI
> (which it doesn't), then it still could not be used by a Pledge. Reason
> is that a Pledge would discover only the IP literal of a Proxy and not
> the one of the Registrar. So the Registrar woul
I have opened to pull requests in github against the text that was there.
The goal is not to merge this, it's an RFC already, but rather to permit
github to be used for wordsmithing efforts.
https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid6648
https://github.com/anima-wg/anima-bootstrap/pull/151/files
Pledg
dson ; rwil...@cisco.com;
anima@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Anima] Errata 6642: Re: Registrar to MASA connections: SNI
required
Trying to find better rules for the process without success, so i think
that it's up to Rob to determine whethrer he wants additional input from the WG
or simply ac
Michael Richardson
> Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2024 19:54
> To: Toerless Eckert
> Cc: rwil...@cisco.com; anima@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [Anima] Errata 6642: Re: Registrar to MASA connections: SNI
> required
>
>
> Toerless Eckert wrote:
> >> I'm
ckert
Cc: rwil...@cisco.com; anima@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Anima] Errata 6642: Re: Registrar to MASA connections: SNI
required
Toerless Eckert wrote:
>> I'm fine with this. But, since it's hold for document update, we
>> don't have to wordsmith it now, as long as
Toerless Eckert wrote:
>> I'm fine with this. But, since it's hold for document update, we
>> don't have to wordsmith it now, as long as we get across the right
>> idea in the patch.
> Well, my understanding is that Rob simply wants a replacement text for
> the Errata that w
On Wed, Feb 14, 2024 at 01:01:56PM -0500, Michael Richardson wrote:
> tte> Just to double check: in this thread we're only talking registrar to
> tte> MASA (no pledges).
>
> The text I quote from you above, says, "pledge"
Siure, i mean for this thread with subject "Errata 6642" lets only
Toerless Eckert wrote:
>> agile. But SNI is one such
>> example, where the pledge does need to
>> signal the right info (SNI)
>> to enable "cheaper" cloud registrars, aka:
>> those not owning a
>> separate IPv4 address. See e.g.: AWS cost for IPv4 > address.
On Mo
-Original Message-
From: Anima On Behalf Of Toerless Eckert
Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2024 03:05
To: Michael Richardson
Cc: rwil...@cisco.com; anima@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Anima] Errata 6642: Re: Registrar to MASA connections: SNI
required
On Mon, Feb 12, 2024 at 09:01:50AM -0500, M
On Mon, Feb 12, 2024 at 09:01:50AM -0500, Michael Richardson wrote:
>
> Toerless Eckert wrote:
> > agile. But SNI is one such example, where the pledge does need to
> > signal the right info (SNI) to enable "cheaper" cloud registrars, aka:
> > those not owning a separate IPv4 address.
Toerless Eckert wrote:
> agile. But SNI is one such example, where the pledge does need to
> signal the right info (SNI) to enable "cheaper" cloud registrars, aka:
> those not owning a separate IPv4 address. See e.g.: AWS cost for IPv4
> address.
Right, but it's self-righting.
A
Hah, forgot to discuss this topic today. Well, it's not running away.
I am really only interested to be diligent with pledge requirements because
those will have
the biggest variety of potentially crappy software stacks. Registars/MASA ci
expect to be much
more software agile. But SNI is one suc
Toerless Eckert wrote:
> Lets maybe finalize next tuesday during our meeting.
> In general i think that whenever a TLS initiator did learn the TLS
> responder through a URL with a domain name, then it needs to insert the
> domain name as the SNI "server_name".
> If thats not
Lets maybe finalize next tuesday during our meeting.
In general i think that whenever a TLS initiator did learn the TLS responder
through a URL
with a domain name, then it needs to insert the domain name as the SNI
"server_name".
If thats not an unwritten rule, then i'd like to understand why n
Toerless Eckert wrote:
> I think it should say:
> Use of TLS 1.3 (or newer) is encouraged. TLS 1.2 or newer is REQUIRED.
> TLS 1.3 (or newer) SHOULD be available. Registrars MUST and MASA
> SHOULD support the "server_name" extension as specified in
> [RFC6066]. This is
If you and Michael can get agreement on what the text should say then I can
always update the errata before I process it.
Thanks for your help, it would be nice to give Mahesh a clean slate when it
comes in as a new AD. It is helpful for RFC readers as well …
Regards,
Rob
From: Toerless Ecke
16 matches
Mail list logo
