>
> >> 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.


Apologies Rich - I reread my original message and I did say "What date is
planned for this release" when I should have said "What date do you expect
to have an implementation".

I understand the source of confusion now & agree with your correction.


On Fri, Dec 1, 2017 at 10:49 AM, Daniel McCarney <[email protected]>
wrote:

> 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 <[email protected]> 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
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/acme

Reply via email to