On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 9:16 AM, Richard Barnes <r...@ipv.sx> wrote: > > > On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 9:51 PM, Phillip Hallam-Baker > <ph...@hallambaker.com> wrote: >> >> I think this discussion is getting way too deep into the weeds of >> policy. That isn't a concern IETF has generally taken a definitive >> stand on. If it had there would not have been the need to set up >> CABForum outside IETF. >> >> As I see it the specification should allow: >> >> * A mechanism for the client to indicate the proof(s) of DNS control >> it can provide. >> >> * A mechanism for the service to indicate the proof(s) of DNS control >> it will accept. > > > I thought that's what this thread was about :)
No, people were discussing the stuff that I said should be left to CABForum. An IETF working group is temporary. They are not meant to be permanent institutions. Why beat ourselves up here deciding an issue that we can't decide here? _______________________________________________ Acme mailing list Acme@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/acme
