Hi! Thanks for the updates on this document.
On process: if this document will be published as Proposed Standard, it will need to be taken out of IESG Evaluation, confirmed in the WG (done), sent for a second IETF LC, and returned for another IETF review. Please let me know if the upcoming -14 will be the right version to re-run the steps. Roman From: Acme <[email protected]> On Behalf Of Deb Cooley Sent: Thursday, May 18, 2023 1:08 PM To: IETF ACME <[email protected]> Cc: [email protected] Subject: Re: [Acme] change from Informational to Proposed Standard apologies, this got away from me. I believe that is enough agreement on the list. Please resubmit as proposed standard. Deb (and Yoav). On Sat, Apr 22, 2023 at 8:58 PM Benjamin Kaduk <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: On Sat, Apr 22, 2023 at 05:56:35PM -0400, Michael Richardson wrote: > > Benjamin Kaduk <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > >> We are considering converting draft-ietf-acme-integrations from > >> informational to standards track. If anyone objects, please reply on > this > >> list by 5 May 2023. > > > Could we say a little more in this thread about why we want to make this > > change? The draft currently states explicitly "[t]his draft is > informational > > and makes no changes to the referenced specifications"; what new > behaviors > > is it important to have at standards-track level of maturity? > > There are no new protocols, but there are MUST requirements on existing > protocols, and we wound up with BCP14 words. > I.e. you MUST do X within exchange Y (even though protocol Y has it as MAY or > SHOULD) Got it, thanks. Yes, PS makes sense to me given that clarification. -Ben
_______________________________________________ Acme mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/acme
