On Thu, Aug 4, 2016 at 11:32 PM, Ron <[email protected]> wrote: > On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 08:24:13PM +0000, Salz, Rich wrote: > > * Request to the mailing list "hey, if you have a post-v1-WGLC, tell > > us or this may not exist further!" > > > > That last item deserves some more explanation. We expect to enter WG > > last call before IETF-97 in Seoul in November. If there are items you > > think we should work on after that, please bring them up here once we > > enter WGLC; which is to say around September. We might need to > > re-charter, or we might want to just stay together to handle errata > > and IETF last call, or we might want to say say we're done and > > disband. > > Are people really planning to take this to WGLC without there being > any operational implementation of this specification - or do people > believe there will actually be tested implementations of it, with > time to properly assess them, before November? > > I'd love for us to stop completely reinventing large parts of this > asap, but given how many issues have shaken out so far when people > go to actually implement this, and the slow progress on implementing > some parts of it, and the limited responses to some of the problems > raised ... setting this all in stone before November seems ... > > ambitious? >
It is ambitious, but I think not unachievable. Jacob and I are trying to finish up an "implementation draft" soon, and I believe Let's Encrypt intends to start implementing pretty quickly thereafter. I've already begun a toy implementation (github.com/bifurcation/rocket-skates), and haven't run into any issues so far. --Richard > > > _______________________________________________ > Acme mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/acme >
_______________________________________________ Acme mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/acme
