Hi Alexey,
> I was talking about rules for adding new values to these 2
> subregistries. E.g. “Expert Review”, “Specification Required”,
> “IETF Review”, etc.
Ah, thanks for the clarification!
I don't see a reason why this new registries should be treated
differently from all other ACME registries and sub-registries
(i.e., Specification Required), so I'd say:
Section 6.1., paragraph 2:
OLD:
o ACME Order Auto Renewal Fields (Section 6.4)
o ACME Directory Metadata Auto Renewal Fields (Section 6.6)
NEW:
o ACME Order Auto Renewal Fields (Section 6.4)
o ACME Directory Metadata Auto Renewal Fields (Section 6.6)
All of these registries are administered under a Specification
Required policy [RFC8126].
Rich, Yoav: would that work for you?
Cheers, t
IMPORTANT NOTICE: The contents of this email and any attachments are
confidential and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient,
please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to any
other person, use it for any purpose, or store or copy the information in any
medium. Thank you.
_______________________________________________
Acme mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/acme
