No objections here. Regards, Andrew
On Thu, 30 Nov 2017 10:22:56 -0800 Jacob Hoffman-Andrews <[email protected]> wrote: > 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
