> > That’s not right. Deployments rarely occur right as the draft is finished.
What isn't right? I expressed an opinion that entering last call for specification text that hasn't been implemented by anyone seems like a recipe for errata. My comment was also specific to implementations not deployments. For added context, the OOB challenge type has been in the spec largely unchanged for two years[0]. Plans to use something are nice but I thought our goal was rough consensus and running code. [0] - https://github.com/ietf-wg-acme/acme/commit/3e64248088da56f046c7448a84a0263d1328f470 On Fri, Dec 1, 2017 at 10:36 AM, Salz, Rich <rs...@akamai.com> wrote: > > - What date is planned for this release? If there won't be a client > and server implementation available by the time we enter last call I still > think it is most appropriate to defer the OOB challenge type as follow-up > work. > > > That’s not right. Deployments rarely occur right as the draft is finished. > > > > So the question was asked, is anyone planning on using this? And we got a > definitive yes answer. I think the question now becomes, are the > alternatives acceptable? > > > > We can of course still decide that OOB should be removed, but let’s talk > about options right now. >
_______________________________________________ Acme mailing list Acme@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/acme
