Don't fret. There have already been several rounds of discussion on this, and there will be several more. Just giving people a chance. Non-US folks even had real work time.
--Richard On Fri, Jul 8, 2016 at 8:22 AM, Jeff Hodges <[email protected]> wrote: > Oh, left out: or even enough time for people to read this email to know > they need to object. I just happened to be up. > > On Fri, Jul 8, 2016 at 5:07 AM Jeff Hodges <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> You sent this at 7 PM Pacific which is after hours and are expecting >> feedback by 9 AM Pacific. I don't think that's nearly enough time to vet >> the latest changes you've made. >> On Thu, Jul 7, 2016 at 6:58 PM Richard Barnes <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> OK, I have updated the preconditions PR to reflect this discussion. >>> It's more invasive than I thought going in, but I think it hangs together. >>> >>> https://github.com/ietf-wg-acme/acme/pull/124 >>> >>> If there are not major objections before tomorrow morning EST, I'm going >>> to go ahead and merge it. We can always back it out if we have buyer's >>> remorse later. >>> >>> On Thu, Jul 7, 2016 at 8:18 PM, Salz, Rich <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> > There are dozens of projects that will need to rework their code if we >>>> > restructure the protocol, including most of these and probably a lot >>>> that >>>> > aren't listed: >>>> > >>>> > https://letsencrypt.org/docs/client-options/ >>>> >>>> That's the LetsEncrypt protocol, not the IETF ACME protocol. We're not >>>> here to polish the staples and rubber-stamp. >>>> >>>> /r$, speaking as co-chair. >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Senior Architect, Akamai Technologies >>>> IM: [email protected] Twitter: RichSalz >>>> >>>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Acme mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/acme >>> >>
_______________________________________________ Acme mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/acme
