[Acme] Re: WGLC for draft-ietf-acme-ari

2024-10-29 Thread Q Misell
Congrats Aaron, and thanks for your hard work on this draft! -- Any statements contained in this email are personal to the author and are not necessarily the statements of the company unless specifically stated. AS207960 Cyfyngedig, having a registered office at 13 Pen-

[Acme] Re: WGLC for draft-ietf-acme-ari

2024-10-28 Thread Yoav Nir
Hi, Again. On 7 Oct 2024, at 20:56, Yoav Nir wrote: > Hi, all > > This begins a working group last call for the ARI draft [1] > > If you haven’t done so recently, please read the latest (-05) version of the > draft, and send comments to the list. > > Due to the Jewish holidays and my upcomi

[Acme] Re: WGLC for draft-ietf-acme-ari

2024-10-17 Thread Aaron Gable
Thanks again everyone, for both your support and your editorial suggestions. I have addressed all of the feedback received here and published draft-ietf-acme-ari-06. I don't anticipate publishing any other changes prior to the IETF 121 document freeze on Monday Oct 21. Thanks, Aaron On Fri, Oct 1

[Acme] Re: WGLC for draft-ietf-acme-ari

2024-10-11 Thread Aaron Gable
Thank you Corey, all three of these make sense to me. I have filed a bug to track these (https://github.com/aarongable/draft-acme-ari/issues/76) and will address them in the GitHub working copy as soon as I'm back from OOO next week. Aaron On Fri, Oct 11, 2024, 07:43 Corey Bonnell wrote: > Hell

[Acme] Re: WGLC for draft-ietf-acme-ari

2024-10-11 Thread Corey Bonnell
Hello, I reviewed the draft and believe it is largely ready, with a few suggestions: 1. A normative reference to RFC 7231 is needed for the Retry-After header. 2. Consider adding guidance for appropriate selection of Retry-After values. Likely this guidance will need to instruct ACM

[Acme] Re: WGLC for draft-ietf-acme-ari

2024-10-11 Thread Amir Omidi
I also support sending this through! On Fri, Oct 11, 2024 at 7:21 AM Q Misell wrote: > I have read the draft and am happy with it in its current state. I support > sending this draft to the IESG. > > Good work Aaron! > -- > > Any statements contained in this email are

[Acme] Re: WGLC for draft-ietf-acme-ari

2024-10-11 Thread Q Misell
I have read the draft and am happy with it in its current state. I support sending this draft to the IESG. Good work Aaron! -- Any statements contained in this email are personal to the author and are not necessarily the statements of the company unless specifically st

[Acme] Re: WGLC for draft-ietf-acme-ari

2024-10-10 Thread Aaron Gable
Thank you! I've fixed the typo[1] in the GitHub working copy and will bundle this fix along with any other comments from the WGLC period. Thanks again, Aaron [1] https://github.com/aarongable/draft-acme-ari/pull/75 On Thu, Oct 10, 2024, 06:55 Prachi Jain wrote: > Hi all, > > It's great to see

[Acme] Re: WGLC for draft-ietf-acme-ari

2024-10-10 Thread Prachi Jain
Hi all, It's great to see ARI in WGLC. Very exciting work !! I read the draft and it is very well written. Just one nit. Section 4.1 The unique* identifer* is constructed by concatenating the > base64url-encoding spellcheck - *'identifier' * Thanks, Prachi On Mon, Oct 7, 2024 at 12:57 PM Y