On 18/07/2018, 10:37, "Acme on behalf of Ilari Liusvaara" <[email protected] on behalf of [email protected]> wrote: > > On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 01:25:06PM +0000, Salz, Rich wrote: > > * This would be my preference. I don't think the base > > specification should change this close to last call > > for this case. > > > > I agree. If we need to fix things after the STAR document > > becomes an RFC, we can publish an errata. > > Or have the STAR document explicitly call that it controverts > this requirement. I think that is a good idea to explicitly > call conflicting requirements (and I have seen examples of > trouble when this has not been done because implementers > were just confused).
This looks like a good suggestion. And I guess when we publish STAR we can add "Updates: RFC-ACME". _______________________________________________ Acme mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/acme
