Sounds like a good path forward. Deb Cooley deco...@nsa.gov
On Fri, Dec 10, 2021 at 9:04 AM Daniel Migault <mglt.i...@gmail.com> wrote: > I also prefer 8499 terminology. > Yours, > Daniel > > On Fri, Dec 10, 2021 at 4:40 AM Owen Friel (ofriel) <ofriel= > 40cisco....@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote: > >> I mentioned it at IETF 112 that we needed to decide on use of RFC8499 vs. >> CA/B forum terminology in the document. >> >> >> >> As this document is not specific to Web PKI use cases, I prefer RFC8499 >> terminology. >> >> >> >> Martin expressed that preference too: >> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/acme/Yh1YbtqZy9rwOmInU1KyJdADTE4/ >> >> >> >> For acme-integrations, Deb also preferred RFC8499: >> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/acme/Hj1PwYuO0zWdXG4HOPGOs8cVNw4/ >> >> >> >> So unless I hear otherwise, I will publish a draft-01 with updated >> RFC8499 terminology, that also addresses Daniels comments >> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/acme/Px0d5MG5_fC490PmEUSRAcsCAF0/ >> , before the holiday break. >> >> >> >> Cheers, >> >> Owen >> _______________________________________________ >> Acme mailing list >> Acme@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/acme >> > > > -- > Daniel Migault > Ericsson > _______________________________________________ > 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
