My personal opinion is that the WG should try to come up with something that makes sense and complies with the intent of 6844 and its examples, instead of trying to be overly strict about complying with the current grammar as written.
We can then file an errata and work with LAMPS to fix up the grammar to unambiguously state what we want it to in 6844bis. It's unfortunate to be in this position, but I think it's the only reasonable path forward. -Tim > -----Original Message----- > From: Acme [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Salz, Rich > Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2018 9:26 AM > To: Ilari Liusvaara <[email protected]>; Roland Shoemaker > <[email protected]> > Cc: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [Acme] ACME-CAA vs. RFC6844 vs. RFC6844bis (Was: Re: Time for > ACME-CAA discussion at 102) > > Ilari, > > That is a very impressive discussion of the issues, and examples. Thank you > very much! > > So, what should the WG do with the CAA challenge document? > > > _______________________________________________ > Acme mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/acme
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ Acme mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/acme
