The IETF requires two weeks… :) (and yes, I realise RSWG is not IETF and this is not a standard)
But, no matter, this version addressed my concerns, so I’m happy. Cheers, Colin On 19 May 2025, at 22:35, Russ Housley wrote: > I did wait a week... > > Russ > > >> On May 19, 2025, at 5:34 PM, Colin Perkins <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> You didn’t specify how immediately you meant when you said “speak now” :) >> >> But, for the record, -03 addresses the issue I raised. >> Colin >> >> >> >> >> On 19 May 2025, at 15:46, Russ Housley wrote: >> >>> Hearing no one raise concerns, this document is ready for the RSAB. >>> >>> For the RSWG Chairs, >>> Russ >>> >>> >>>> On May 12, 2025, at 6:59 PM, Russ Housley <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>> Please speak now if the posting of -03 does not resolve all of the issues >>>> that were raised. >>>> >>>> For the RSWG Chairs, >>>> Russ >>>> >>>> >>>>> On Apr 27, 2025, at 12:52 PM, Russ Housley <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> The authors believe that these documents are ready for publications as >>>>> aInformational RFC on the Editorial Stream. >>>>> >>>>> The Internet-Draft is here: >>>>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-editorial-rswg-rfc9280-updates/ >>>>> >>>>> This is a two week RSWG Last Call. Please post a message to the >>>>> [email protected] list before 12 May 2025 to voice your support or >>>>> raise concerns. >>>>> >>>>> For the RSWG Chairs, >>>>> Russ >>>> >>> >>> -- >>> rswg mailing list -- [email protected] >>> To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] -- rswg mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
