[Acme] Re: WG Last Call: draft-ietf-acme-dns-account-label-02 (Ends 2026-05-27)

[Mike Ounsworth <[e-mail]>]

Thanks Corey and Shiloh.

I'll close out this WGLC and move the document into the IESG review stage.

On Thu, 16 Jul 2026 at 19:36, Shiloh Heurich <sheurich=
[e-mail]> wrote:

> I also reviewed draft -03 from the perspective of the Boulder and Pebble
> implementations I worked on and that Certainly uses. I support publication
> as written.
> Regards,
> Shiloh
>
> > On Jul 3, 2026, at 09:00, [e-mail] wrote:
> >
> > Hello,
> > I reviewed -03 and think it's ready to ship. This method has been
> allowed by the CA/Browser Forum Baseline Requirements as validation method
> #21 for quite some time, and there are publicly trusted CAs that have
> implemented this draft. It would be good to move this along, absent glaring
> issues.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Corey
> >
> >
> >> On May 13, 2026, at 14:57, Mike Ounsworth via Datatracker <
> [e-mail]> wrote:
> >>
> >> This message starts a WG Last Call for:
> >> draft-ietf-acme-dns-account-label-02
> >>
> >> This Working Group Last Call ends on 2026-05-27
> >>
> >> Chair Note:
> >>
> >> This document has essentially been done for 2 years and has active
> deployments. This WGLC is to gather a final round of review from the WG,
> and to see if anyone objects to moving it along and giving it an RFC number.
> >>
> >>
> >> Abstract:
> >>   This document outlines a new DNS-based challenge type for the ACME
> >>   protocol that enables multiple independent systems to authorize a
> >>   single domain name concurrently.  By adding a unique label to the DNS
> >>   validation record name, the dns-account-01 challenge avoids CNAME
> >>   delegation conflicts inherent to the dns-01 challenge type.  This is
> >>   particularly valuable for multi-region or multi-cloud deployments
> >>   that wish to rely upon DNS-based domain control validation and need
> >>   to independently obtain certificates for the same domain.
> >>
> >> File can be retrieved from:
> >>
> >> Please review and indicate your support or objection to proceed with the
> >> publication of this document by replying to this email keeping
> [e-mail]
> >> in copy. Objections should be explained and suggestions to resolve them
> are
> >> highly appreciated.
> >>
> >> Authors, and WG participants in general, are reminded of the
> Intellectual
> >> Property Rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in BCP 79 [1].
> >> Appropriate IPR disclosures required for full conformance with the
> provisions
> >> of BCP 78 [1] and BCP 79 [2] must be filed, if you are aware of any.
> >> Sanctions available for application to violators of IETF IPR Policy can
> be
> >> found at [3].
> >>
> >> Thank you.
> >>
> >> [1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/bcp78/
> >> [2] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/bcp79/
> >> [3] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc6701/
> >>
> >> The IETF datatracker status page for this Internet-Draft is:
> >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-acme-dns-account-label/
> >>
> >> There is also an HTMLized version available at:
> >>
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-acme-dns-account-label-02
> >>
> >> A diff from the previous version is available at:
> >>
> https://author-tools.ietf.org/iddiff?url2=draft-ietf-acme-dns-account-label-02
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> Acme mailing list -- [e-mail]
> To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]
>