On Wed, Jul 25, 2018 at 9:46 AM, Salz, Rich < [email protected]> wrote:
> There was no email, other than process comments, on these. Therefore they > are (re-)entering WGLC. > > > > @ekr, please put draft-ietf-acme-acme-13 on the IESG agenda. > Due to the changes between -12 and -13, I believe it is appropriate to have another IETFLC. I have requested that. -Ekr > > The other two documents are very short. Does anyone volunteer to do the > shepherd writeup? You can look at https://datatracker.ietf.org/ > doc/draft-ietf-acme-acme/shepherdwriteup/ for a sample. This is a good > way for someone new to the IETF process to get involved. > > > > > > *From: *Rich Salz <[email protected]> > *Date: *Wednesday, July 18, 2018 at 3:56 PM > *To: *"[email protected]" <[email protected]> > *Subject: *Re: Confirming consensus > > > > For completeness, these are > > draft-ietf-acme-acme-13 > > draft-ietf-acme-tls-alpn-01 > > draft-ietf-acme-ip-02 > > > > *From: *Rich Salz <[email protected]> > *Date: *Wednesday, July 18, 2018 at 2:47 PM > *To: *"[email protected]" <[email protected]> > *Subject: *Confirming consensus > > > > As discussed in a separate thread, we added mandatory-to-implement JSON > signing crypto (TLS 1.3 signing algorithms); note that this does not affect > the certificates themselves. > > > > We decided to move draft-ietf-acme-tls-alpn and draft-ietf-acme-ip to > working group last call. > > > > If you disagree with either of these decisions, please speak up by > Monday. Note that the WGLC for the main document is being re-run in > parallel with IESG and soon IETF review. > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Acme mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/acme > >
_______________________________________________ Acme mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/acme
