The fact that it's currently Informational is definitely just a mistake on my part; I switched RFC generation systems (from mmark to kramdown) and missed updating the appropriate `category:` metadata tag in the new source file.
Thanks, Aaron On Wed, Aug 6, 2025 at 12:27 PM David Benjamin <[email protected]> wrote: > I support adoption. Changing it to standards track makes sense to me. > > On Wed, Aug 6, 2025 at 2:54 PM Mike Ounsworth <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> This email starts a 2 week call for adoption for >> draft-aaron-acme-profiles. >> >> History: it was decided at IETF 122 to do a call for adoption of this >> draft [1]. According to those minutes, this draft has support for rough >> consensus and running code. >> >> Please respond on the list by 20 August 2025 whether ACME should or >> should not >> adopt this document. >> >> Additionally, this draft is currently tagged "Intended status: >> Informational", but Aaron and I discussed that it probably makes sense for >> it to be Standards Track. So, as part of CfA, let's also hear opinions on >> changing it to Standards Track. >> >> [1]: >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/minutes-122-acme-202503200600/#acme-profiles-gable >> _______________________________________________ >> Acme mailing list -- [email protected] >> To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] >> > _______________________________________________ > Acme mailing list -- [email protected] > To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] >
_______________________________________________ Acme mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
