Hi! > -----Original Message----- > From: Acme [mailto:acme-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Thomas Fossati > Sent: Thursday, September 12, 2019 7:38 AM > To: Salz, Rich <rs...@akamai.com>; Richard Barnes <r...@ipv.sx> > Cc: IETF ACME <acme@ietf.org>; Thomas Fossati > <thomas.foss...@arm.com> > Subject: Re: [Acme] draft-ietf-acme-star > > On 11/09/2019, 18:40, "Salz, Rich" <rs...@akamai.com> wrote: > > > the protocol is still correct/consistent. But, let's be bold as > > > it's probably worth taking the risk :-) > > > > We can ask that the IESG/IETF do a simultaneous re-review period of > > something like two weeks. > > Sounds good, thank you.
I concur with the spirit of the thinking here. However, "IETF re-review" and IESG review are distinct activities that should not run in parallel. If we want to conduct another IETF LC, no problem -- also consider another WGLC if appropriate. However, all of these reviews should conclude before bringing it to the IESG for review. By the time it gets to the IESG, the WG should have consensus and the broader community should have had their chance to review and resolve issues as well. Roman _______________________________________________ Acme mailing list Acme@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/acme
