[cabfpub] CAA working group description

[Jacob Hoffman-Andrews]

> I know there’s a CAA document going through ACME. Is this also going
LAMPS?  The ACME WG is already working on account UIR and validation-methods
parameters. Given that this represents two of the four parameters suggested
during the F2F, should we add the other two there?

There are two CAA documents currently being discussed at IETF:

Hugo Landau's draft to add a validation-method parameter to
CAA: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-acme-caa/. Currently in
last call. This was started in the ACME WG because LAMPS was not chartered
to discuss CAA at the time. LAMPS is now in the process of being
rechartered to discuss CAA, so we can additionally discuss over there.

My CAA Simplification draft, currently an individual draft, but hopefully
soon to be a WG
draft: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-hoffman-andrews-caa-simplification/.
This is being discussed at the LAMPS WG.

I'd encourage folks to join both ACME and LAMPS, but if you only have time
for one, join LAMPS. https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/lamps/charter/.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.cabforum.org/pipermail/public/attachments/20171006/260b7d19/attachment-0003.html>