On Wed, May 13, 2015 at 7:36 PM, Ted Hardie ted.i...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, May 13, 2015 at 4:22 PM, Randy Bush ra...@psg.com wrote:
ACME certificate management must provide automated methods for
revocation parallel to those use to request a certificate?
what the heck does parallel
On Wed, May 13, 2015 at 7:39 PM, Salz, Rich rs...@akamai.com wrote:
https://github.com/letsencrypt/acme-spec/issues
I'd prefer if we just recorded issues there, but discussed them in the
mailing list.
I would prefer if we avoid getting into practices and policy issues there
as well.
An
On Wed, May 13, 2015 at 11:39:36PM +, Salz, Rich wrote:
https://github.com/letsencrypt/acme-spec/issues
I'd prefer if we just recorded issues there, but discussed them in the
mailing list.
Folks should also be aware that because letsencypt needs to move fast to
get working and
On 13 May 2015 at 16:39, Salz, Rich rs...@akamai.com wrote:
I'd prefer if we just recorded issues there, but discussed them in the
mailing list.
I'd go further and treat that as a private enterprise. They might
help track our issues for us, but until we have an official tracker,
it has no
At the end of the ACME BoF, it was suggested that the next step was charter
language. I took a stab at some to get the discussion going.
I did not consider milestones yet. I think it is easier to get consensus on
the charter text and then discuss milestones.
Please review and comment.
Russ
Hi Russ,
On 20/04/15 17:11, Russ Housley wrote:
Stephen:
If that paragraph were removed, would you be happier with the
charter? If so, consider it gone.
I would be happier yes. But I think we're better off having the
discussion now, before chartering, since otherwise we may end up
Stephen:
If that paragraph were removed, would you be happier with the charter? If so,
consider it gone. I'm willing to assume that an attempt to replace things that
people are using will meet with vigorous discussion.
Russ
On Apr 20, 2015, at 12:05 PM, Stephen Farrell wrote:
On
