Hi Russ, On 08/06/2017, 20:56, "Acme on behalf of Russ Housley" <[email protected] on behalf of [email protected]> wrote: > 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.
The new scope would be the extension to ACME that allows automatic renewal of the order, i.e., sections 3.4 and 3.5 of the current draft. Cheers, t > 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/ 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] Twitter: RichSalz _______________________________________________ Acme mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/acme
