Hearing no complaints, the modifications in the current draft pass the
abbreviated second WGLC.
Roman, how do you want to handle the next step?
On 9/20/19, 11:05 AM, "Salz, Rich" <rs...@akamai.com> wrote:
Reminder, please speak up by Monday or we will call consensus.
On 9/17/19, 1:17 PM, "Salz, Rich" <rs...@akamai.com> wrote:
This came up during IESG/IETF last calls.
Most of the changes are editorial, such as changing some of the field
names in the JSON structures etc (e.g., recurrent to auto-renewal). But a
couple are operational and CA/B forum compliance.
Quoting the summary of changes:
o STAR Order and Directory Meta attributes
renamed slightly and
grouped under two brand new
"auto-renewal" objects;
o IANA registration updated accordingly
(note that two new
registries have been added as a
consequence);
o Unbounded pre-dating of certificates
removed so that STAR certs
are never issued with their notBefore in
the past;
o Changed "recurrent" to "autoRenewal" in
error codes;
o Changed "recurrent" to "auto-renewal" in
reference to Orders;
o Added operational considerations for HTTP
caches.
If anyone in the working group dislikes these changes, please speak up
by Monday.
Thanks.
/r$, co-chair
On 9/17/19, 11:02 AM, "internet-dra...@ietf.org"
<internet-dra...@ietf.org> wrote:
A new version (-09) has been submitted for draft-ietf-acme-star:
https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-acme-star-09.txt
The IETF datatracker page for this Internet-Draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-acme-star/
Diff from previous version:
https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-acme-star-09
Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of
submission
until the diff is available at tools.ietf.org.
IETF Secretariat.
_______________________________________________
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
