Hi all, Apologies, I was out for the past two weeks. I agree that this draft still represents the group consensus, and think it should proceed.
Aaron On Wed, Apr 16, 2025 at 10:11 AM Sipos, Brian J. <brian.si...@jhuapl.edu> wrote: > Chairs, as document author I also support its continued progress. I > believe it still represents an interoperable, experimental ACME validation > method. > > > > Brian S. > > > > *From:* Yoav Nir <ynir.i...@gmail.com> > *Sent:* Thursday, April 10, 2025 3:47 PM > *To:* IETF ACME <acme@ietf.org> > *Subject:* [EXT] [Acme] Re: Two-week confirmation of the DTN Node ID draft > > > > *APL external email warning: *Verify sender forwardingalgori...@ietf.org > before clicking links or attachments > > > > A reminder. > > > > So far, we’ve had but one response. We’d like to see more. > > > > > > On 2 Apr 2025, at 7:44, Yoav Nir <ynir.i...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Hi, folks > > > > As we said at the meeting, the DTN Node ID draft can now progress, now > that RFC 9713 has been published. > > > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-acme-dtnnodeid/ > > > > This WG approved the document in 2021, followed by an IETF LC and IESG > processing. Because so much time has elapsed, we’d like to poll the group > to see that this document still represents the WG consensus. > > > > Please re-read this, and reply to this thread. Is this still a good idea. > > > > Please respond by EOD 16-April-2025. > > > > Regards, > > > > Tomofumi & Yoav > > ACME chairs > > > _______________________________________________ > Acme mailing list -- acme@ietf.org > To unsubscribe send an email to acme-le...@ietf.org >
_______________________________________________ Acme mailing list -- acme@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to acme-le...@ietf.org
