On Mon, Sep 30, 2019 at 09:17:40AM +0000, Thomas Fossati wrote: > Hi Alexey, > > > I was talking about rules for adding new values to these 2 > > subregistries. E.g. “Expert Review”, “Specification Required”, > > “IETF Review”, etc. > > Ah, thanks for the clarification! > > I don't see a reason why this new registries should be treated > differently from all other ACME registries and sub-registries > (i.e., Specification Required), so I'd say: > > Section 6.1., paragraph 2: > OLD: > > o ACME Order Auto Renewal Fields (Section 6.4) > o ACME Directory Metadata Auto Renewal Fields (Section 6.6) > > NEW: > > o ACME Order Auto Renewal Fields (Section 6.4) > o ACME Directory Metadata Auto Renewal Fields (Section 6.6) > All of these registries are administered under a Specification > Required policy [RFC8126]. > > Rich, Yoav: would that work for you?
Note that "Specification Required" also implies expert review; please consider giving some guidance to the experts as to when they should approve/reject a registration request. Thanks, Ben _______________________________________________ Acme mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/acme
