Re: [Acme] Supporting off-line (manual) validation

Phillip Hallam-Baker <phill@hallambaker.com> Tue, 28 July 2015 02:53 UTC

Return-Path: <hallam@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: acme@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: acme@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 166281A86F4 for <acme@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 27 Jul 2015 19:53:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.277
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.277 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id HXjhLYSuIW2x for <acme@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 27 Jul 2015 19:53:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-la0-x22b.google.com (mail-la0-x22b.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c03::22b]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id ACEE71A86E4 for <acme@ietf.org>; Mon, 27 Jul 2015 19:53:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by lahh5 with SMTP id h5so60187473lah.2 for <acme@ietf.org>; Mon, 27 Jul 2015 19:53:40 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject :from:to:cc:content-type; bh=DzTUo7dIpYxwtDYWlMCLh9nyXlAAPQP7E3NtL8fJ+BY=; b=hThQgKX8IGV0D69SK3ieFwYf0nLQ5uClx4QxcQRaYdgzvgyMyJKEU2knnhYDH6P8TU UhLyMSqvPBPuDmwaxvS7Sx0cooYjb4/Gt4tokvG0g0bJARNlfixrRmHjRow3A/H4fPoh d+d7Zkxmd3B4m+waNwr547Sej4zcocLxcoMmVB/wquUcZQyj/FehxiWa1O01U7Ox62M+ /dI/PuAM6bvcuAfD5rONw1C6xjiT4vihal0pjk4awy/GeUg6MdY8lqXyCKEig1UgYkUX M5Bv3S1U8r4o+YcX03N+4IC07pQfU0+Cd2SRT9XfYDZ3WKX+UzahlWDwPhi9S8GwOgWN u9TQ==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.112.164.35 with SMTP id yn3mr29759475lbb.91.1438052020236; Mon, 27 Jul 2015 19:53:40 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: hallam@gmail.com
Received: by 10.112.203.163 with HTTP; Mon, 27 Jul 2015 19:53:40 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAL02cgQJq4Op0sgU4gr5BprdkOTtpzGfiH6bJxhqTSM0fsdgPQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <cdd7588d86884d81a68e104823b65dcc@ustx2ex-dag1mb2.msg.corp.akamai.com> <CA+9kkMDxAE+SAFkQdu09nbq8LBREXxFc_HNpcjCHppkOYTE35w@mail.gmail.com> <af096a1746d24694a5503b82deb27d74@ustx2ex-dag1mb2.msg.corp.akamai.com> <CAL02cgSGJYws4SEkP7VJ+eOskPBKFKJ1w=_GQ7WLB-MC6=NKiw@mail.gmail.com> <671fb43b59c44e9b848926189912da01@ustx2ex-dag1mb2.msg.corp.akamai.com> <CAMm+LwjANR0UgPcHCXGOxEoa8CeVZM2iUWsEEbKboYouJ9Sb3A@mail.gmail.com> <CAL02cgQJq4Op0sgU4gr5BprdkOTtpzGfiH6bJxhqTSM0fsdgPQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 04:53:40 +0200
X-Google-Sender-Auth: tghp332SeqZsOtVHIrATeLU4nl4
Message-ID: <CAMm+LwjEUJsstp8zHxpN=PcSgV37JmrgL14ij0qADcbt3Ok4ig@mail.gmail.com>
From: Phillip Hallam-Baker <phill@hallambaker.com>
To: Richard Barnes <rlb@ipv.sx>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c33530d5b835051be6934e
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/acme/Pcyqk6YgwAxrEhC16oRHn8xgAs8>
Cc: "Salz, Rich" <rsalz@akamai.com>, Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com>, "acme@ietf.org" <acme@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Acme] Supporting off-line (manual) validation
X-BeenThere: acme@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Automated Certificate Management Environment <acme.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/acme>, <mailto:acme-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/acme/>
List-Post: <mailto:acme@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:acme-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/acme>, <mailto:acme-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 02:53:44 -0000

On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 3:45 AM, Richard Barnes <rlb@ipv.sx>; wrote:

> On Mon, Jul 27, 2015 at 7:51 PM, Phillip Hallam-Baker
> <phill@hallambaker.com>; wrote:
> > As a general rule, any protocol that contains a component that may be
> > subject to variation in the field needs an IANA registry. Since we are
> going
> > to have multiple automatic validation processes we will be required to
> have
> > a registry even if there is only one entry at first.
>
> ACME has always been structured with a registry in mind; the IANA
> considerations just haven't been written up :)


Thats fine, I just wanted to make sure that this hadn't been erased during
the discussion.