After very quickly looking at the document, I am not clear which parts will make up the ACME extensions. I need more clarity to offer an opinion.
Russ > On Jun 8, 2017, at 12:25 PM, Salz, Rich <[email protected]> wrote: > > At the June 2 interim, we had consensus to adopt > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-sheffer-acme-star/ > <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-sheffer-acme-star/> as a WG document, > subject to splitting > It into two documents, the ACME extension in one, and the delegation protocol > in another. This corresponds to #1 and #2 in the abstract of the draft. > > The authors have agreed to do this. Assuming that the split document is > done, are there any objections to adopting *the ACME extensions* as a WG > document? Please respond by the end of next week. We will have a separate > discussion on the other protocol. > > -- > Senior Architect, Akamai Technologies > Member, OpenSSL Dev Team > IM: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> Twitter: RichSalz >
_______________________________________________ Acme mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/acme
