There was no email, other than process comments, on these. Therefore they are (re-)entering WGLC.
@ekr, please put draft-ietf-acme-acme-13 on the IESG agenda. The other two documents are very short. Does anyone volunteer to do the shepherd writeup? You can look at https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-acme-acme/shepherdwriteup/ for a sample. This is a good way for someone new to the IETF process to get involved. From: Rich Salz <rs...@akamai.com> Date: Wednesday, July 18, 2018 at 3:56 PM To: "acme@ietf.org" <acme@ietf.org> Subject: Re: Confirming consensus For completeness, these are draft-ietf-acme-acme-13 draft-ietf-acme-tls-alpn-01 draft-ietf-acme-ip-02 From: Rich Salz <rs...@akamai.com> Date: Wednesday, July 18, 2018 at 2:47 PM To: "acme@ietf.org" <acme@ietf.org> Subject: Confirming consensus As discussed in a separate thread, we added mandatory-to-implement JSON signing crypto (TLS 1.3 signing algorithms); note that this does not affect the certificates themselves. We decided to move draft-ietf-acme-tls-alpn and draft-ietf-acme-ip to working group last call. If you disagree with either of these decisions, please speak up by Monday. Note that the WGLC for the main document is being re-run in parallel with IESG and soon IETF review.
_______________________________________________ Acme mailing list Acme@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/acme
