As a point of order, I'm pretty sure the chairs don't need consensus to move to WGLC, they can just do it.
On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 3:53 PM Salz, Rich <rsalz= 40akamai....@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote: > For context: this is draft-ietf-acme-star-03 as mentioned in the Subject > but not the body. > > > > *From: *Rich Salz <rs...@akamai.com> > *Date: *Wednesday, July 18, 2018 at 2:50 PM > *To: *"Salz, Rich" <rsalz=40akamai....@dmarc.ietf.org>, "acme@ietf.org" < > acme@ietf.org> > *Subject: *Re: [Acme] Consensus on WGLC for draft-ietf-acme-star-03 > > > > Please reply by Wednesday, a week. > > > > *From: *"Salz, Rich" <rsalz=40akamai....@dmarc.ietf.org> > *Date: *Wednesday, July 18, 2018 at 2:49 PM > *To: *"acme@ietf.org" <acme@ietf.org> > *Subject: *[Acme] Consensus on WGLC for draft-ietf-acme-star-03 > > > > At London, the WG decided to have draft-ietf-acme-star to WGLC, but the > chairs dropped the ball. > > > > Does anyone object to doing this? We would particularly like to also know > if you have read the document. > > > > Thanks. > _______________________________________________ > Acme mailing list > Acme@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/acme >
_______________________________________________ Acme mailing list Acme@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/acme
