On Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 2:47 PM, Jacob Hoffman-Andrews <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 03/20/2016 07:14 PM, Richard Barnes wrote: > > #101 Remove proof-of-possession challenge > > https://github.com/ietf-wg-acme/acme/pull/101 > This looks fine. As an implementer, I think we may want to implement > some proof-of-possession concept in the future, but I think this > mechanism is not quite right. And we should take it out till we're more > confident in what we want to do. > > > #102 Replace in-band account recovery with `meta` > > https://github.com/ietf-wg-acme/acme/pull/102 > This is pretty ambiguous. In the spirit of the above, I would leave this > unspecified until we have a clearer idea of what we want out of this. > > As a process point: I'm guessing there is some meta list where deadlines > for I-Ds are posted, but I'm not on it. Would you mind cross-posting a > reminder about such deadlines to the ACME list a couple weeks in > advance, so we have more time to consider and work on changes like these? > The deadline is related to the IETF meeting; they impose a few weeks' black-out on document updates before the meeting to try to give people a baseline (and because in certain corners of the IETF, it's still the 1970s): http://ietf.org/meeting/important-dates-2016.html Note that this doesn't need to stop work in Github. It only affects the "official" versions that get submitted to the IETF. --Richard > > Thanks, > Jacob >
_______________________________________________ Acme mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/acme
