Re: [Acme] IETF 97 follow-up PRs

2016-11-28 Thread Martin Thomson
On 29 November 2016 at 13:37, Richard Barnes wrote: > I actually thought you were the one that suggested we keep the "status" > fields :) The minutes not being dispositive, I pulled up the audio > recording of the meeting ([1], around 35:00), and didn't find anything there >

Re: [Acme] IETF 97 follow-up PRs

2016-11-28 Thread Jacob Hoffman-Andrews
On 11/18/2016 05:11 PM, Richard Barnes wrote: > #207 - Change agreementRequired to userActionRequired > https://github.com/ietf-wg-acme/acme/pull/207 LGTM > > #208 - Remove the 'requirements' abstraction > https://github.com/ietf-wg-acme/acme/pull/208 Posted feedback: