I've reviewed each and left comments or positive +1's in the form of approved Github reviews.
I'm in favour of removing the SCT link relation. It's unnecessary and as Richard pointed out, easy to add back if it turns out the other SCT delivery mechanisms aren't sufficient for a concrete use-case. On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 5:46 PM, Jacob Hoffman-Andrews <[email protected]> wrote: > In review, Rich pointed out that some of these are more substantive and > should be reviewed as such, so I broke them out into their own PRs: > > Remove SCT link relation. https://github.com/ietf-wg-acme/acme/pull/234 > Specify multi-viewpoint validation. > https://github.com/ietf-wg-acme/acme/pull/239 > Specify server MAY follow HTTP redirects. > https://github.com/ietf-wg-acme/acme/pull/238 > > Note: the last one is more of a clarification of current behavior, since > HTTP already says "MAY" for redirects. But a lot of ACME implementers > have been surprised to hear that redirects are followed, so I think it's > important to clarify. > > On 01/19/2017 11:55 AM, Jacob Hoffman-Andrews wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > I did a top-to-bottom review of the spec to look for coherency (since > > we've changed a number of concepts), mistakes, and general consistency. > > I filed several pull requests on GitHub: > > > > https://github.com/ietf-wg-acme/acme/pull/231 > > https://github.com/ietf-wg-acme/acme/pull/232 > > https://github.com/ietf-wg-acme/acme/pull/233 > > https://github.com/ietf-wg-acme/acme/pull/234 > > https://github.com/ietf-wg-acme/acme/pull/235 > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Acme mailing list > > [email protected] > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/acme > > > > _______________________________________________ > Acme mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/acme >
_______________________________________________ Acme mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/acme
