Chairs, as document author I also support its continued progress. I believe it still represents an interoperable, experimental ACME validation method.
Brian S. From: Yoav Nir <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, April 10, 2025 3:47 PM To: IETF ACME <[email protected]> Subject: [EXT] [Acme] Re: Two-week confirmation of the DTN Node ID draft APL external email warning: Verify sender [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> before clicking links or attachments A reminder. So far, we’ve had but one response. We’d like to see more. On 2 Apr 2025, at 7:44, Yoav Nir <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > wrote: Hi, folks As we said at the meeting, the DTN Node ID draft can now progress, now that RFC 9713 has been published. https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-acme-dtnnodeid/ This WG approved the document in 2021, followed by an IETF LC and IESG processing. Because so much time has elapsed, we’d like to poll the group to see that this document still represents the WG consensus. Please re-read this, and reply to this thread. Is this still a good idea. Please respond by EOD 16-April-2025. Regards, Tomofumi & Yoav ACME chairs
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ Acme mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
