I agree with this change. It's a good plan to not try and pre-specify things like OOB that aren't on anyone's roadmap, because that leaves the space open for a better specification once someone wants to implement it.
On 11/30/2017 09:39 AM, Clint Wilson wrote: > > I agree with the reasoning and decision to remove this. > While I think it's possible for this challenge type to become useful > in the future, I don't have any justification for keeping it in in the > meantime. As Daniel notes, it's straightforward to add it back if needed. > > > On Thu, Nov 30, 2017, 10:25 AM Daniel McCarney <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > > Daniel, please do not merge this until we determine WG consensus > > Of course :-) I don't have any merge privileges! > > On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 11:42 AM, Salz, Rich <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > Does anyone disagree with Daniel’s reasoning? If so, please > speak up before next Friday. > > > > Daniel, please do not merge this until we determine WG consensus. > > > _______________________________________________ > Acme mailing list > [email protected] <mailto:[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
