On 25/06/2020 19:48, Roman Danyliw wrote:
Hi Alexey!
-Original Message-
From: Acme On Behalf Of Alexey Melnikov
Sent: Tuesday, June 16, 2020 11:38 AM
To: Roman Danyliw ; IETF ACME
Subject: Re: [Acme] AD Review of draft-ietf-acme-email-smime-07
Hi Roman,
On 22/05/2020 15:54, Roman
Hi Alexey!
> -Original Message-
> From: Acme On Behalf Of Alexey Melnikov
> Sent: Tuesday, June 16, 2020 11:38 AM
> To: Roman Danyliw ; IETF ACME
> Subject: Re: [Acme] AD Review of draft-ietf-acme-email-smime-07
>
> Hi Roman,
>
> On 22/05/2020 15:54,
Hi Alexey!
Thanks for making the updated in -08.
> -Original Message-
> From: Acme On Behalf Of Alexey Melnikov
> Sent: Friday, May 29, 2020 12:39 PM
> To: Roman Danyliw
> Cc: IETF ACME
> Subject: Re: [Acme] AD Review of draft-ietf-acme-email-smime-07
>
>
Hi Roman,
On 22/05/2020 15:54, Roman Danyliw wrote:
** Section 6.
-- Recommend explicitly naming the registries being updated
-- Per the challenge type, all of the fields in the registry aren't described
here
-- Per the challenge type, the text in Section 3 says that the challenge type is
Hi Alexey!
> -Original Message-
> From: Acme On Behalf Of Alexey Melnikov
> Sent: Friday, May 29, 2020 12:39 PM
> To: Roman Danyliw
> Cc: IETF ACME
> Subject: Re: [Acme] AD Review of draft-ietf-acme-email-smime-07
>
> Hi Roman,
>
> Thank you for your
On Fri, May 29, 2020 at 1:08 PM Russ Housley wrote:
> >> ** What was the thinking behind the document status being informational?
> > I don't think there was much thought or discussion of this point. I am
> > flexible. I think when I started it was not very clear how much
> > support/interest
> On May 29, 2020, at 12:38 PM, Alexey Melnikov
> wrote:
>
> Hi Roman,
>
> Thank you for your detailed review.
>
> On 22/05/2020 15:54, Roman Danyliw wrote:
>> Hi!
>>
>> I completed my AD review of draft-ietf-acme-email-smime-07. Thanks for the
>> work on this document. Here is my
Hi Roman,
Thank you for your detailed review.
On 22/05/2020 15:54, Roman Danyliw wrote:
Hi!
I completed my AD review of draft-ietf-acme-email-smime-07. Thanks for the
work on this document. Here is my feedback:
** What was the thinking behind the document status being informational?
I
>** What was the thinking behind the document status being informational?
As opposed to what, standards-track? The main thing was no commitment to
implement.
___
Acme mailing list
Acme@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/acme
