apologies, this got away from me. I believe that is enough agreement on the list. Please resubmit as proposed standard.
Deb (and Yoav). On Sat, Apr 22, 2023 at 8:58 PM Benjamin Kaduk <[email protected]> wrote: > On Sat, Apr 22, 2023 at 05:56:35PM -0400, Michael Richardson wrote: > > > > Benjamin Kaduk <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > >> We are considering converting draft-ietf-acme-integrations from > > >> informational to standards track. If anyone objects, please reply > on this > > >> list by 5 May 2023. > > > > > Could we say a little more in this thread about why we want to > make this > > > change? The draft currently states explicitly "[t]his draft is > informational > > > and makes no changes to the referenced specifications"; what new > behaviors > > > is it important to have at standards-track level of maturity? > > > > There are no new protocols, but there are MUST requirements on existing > > protocols, and we wound up with BCP14 words. > > I.e. you MUST do X within exchange Y (even though protocol Y has it as > MAY or SHOULD) > > Got it, thanks. > > Yes, PS makes sense to me given that clarification. > > -Ben > >
_______________________________________________ Acme mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/acme
