Re: [Acme] Consensus on WGLC for draft-ietf-acme-star-03
Really OT... You are correct, But, it’s quite reasonable for a chair to check with the WG to see if folks think a doc is ready for WGLC.I’ve done that for 12+ years and it’s actually not unusual to get very valid concerns raised at this point in the process. It keeps docs from having to go through multiple WGLCs. I find that approach easier to deal with in the case that I’m the shepherd as often WGLC is a good time to start the write up and I find it very annoying and not a good use of my time. Regards, Mary On Monday, July 23, 2018, Richard Barnes wrote: > As a point of order, I'm pretty sure the chairs don't need consensus to > move to WGLC, they can just do it. > > On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 3:53 PM Salz, Rich ietf.org> wrote: > >> For context: this is draft-ietf-acme-star-03 as mentioned in the Subject >> but not the body. >> >> >> >> *From: *Rich Salz >> *Date: *Wednesday, July 18, 2018 at 2:50 PM >> *To: *"Salz, Rich" , "acme@ietf.org" < >> acme@ietf.org> >> *Subject: *Re: [Acme] Consensus on WGLC for draft-ietf-acme-star-03 >> >> >> >> Please reply by Wednesday, a week. >> >> >> >> *From: *"Salz, Rich" >> *Date: *Wednesday, July 18, 2018 at 2:49 PM >> *To: *"acme@ietf.org" >> *Subject: *[Acme] Consensus on WGLC for draft-ietf-acme-star-03 >> >> >> >> At London, the WG decided to have draft-ietf-acme-star to WGLC, but the >> chairs dropped the ball. >> >> >> >> Does anyone object to doing this? We would particularly like to also >> know if you have read the document. >> >> >> >> Thanks. >> ___ >> Acme mailing list >> Acme@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/acme >> > -- Sent from Gmail Mobile ___ Acme mailing list Acme@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/acme
Re: [Acme] Confirming consensus
On Fri, Jul 20, 2018 at 12:05:05AM +0300, Ilari Liusvaara wrote: > On Thu, Jul 19, 2018 at 01:03:14PM -0700, Roland Shoemaker wrote: > > One thing that I forgot to bring up during the meeting was an issue > > that was brought up with regards to the order in which the ACME-TLS-ALPN > > and ACME-IP drafts are standardized. ACME-IP defines how to use IP > > addresses with existing challenges and we’d like to include guidance > > on how to do so with TLS-ALPN, but (as far as I’m aware) we are unable > > to reference IDs in RFCs so we cannot directly reference > > draft-ietf-acme-tls-alpn > > This is incorrect. IDs can normatively reference other IDs, if > there is a "plan" on getting the referenced ID ready to be published. > If needed, the referencing draft waits for the referenced one in > RFC-Editor queue. To expound a bit more, an I-D that gets approved to be an RFC while including a normative reference on another I-D will get stuck in the "MISSREF" state until the depended-on RFC is also ready for publication; this generally also includes the creation of a "cluster" or related proto-RFCs. It is perfectly acceptable for final, published RFCs to have *informative* references to I-Ds, even I-Ds which are not necessarily expected to be published as RFCs. > So I think the easiest way is to just have normative reference > ACME-IP -> TLS-ALPN. This results in them both getting published at the same time, but that is probably fine. -Ben ___ Acme mailing list Acme@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/acme
Re: [Acme] Consensus on WGLC for draft-ietf-acme-star-03
As a point of order, I'm pretty sure the chairs don't need consensus to move to WGLC, they can just do it. On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 3:53 PM Salz, Rich wrote: > For context: this is draft-ietf-acme-star-03 as mentioned in the Subject > but not the body. > > > > *From: *Rich Salz > *Date: *Wednesday, July 18, 2018 at 2:50 PM > *To: *"Salz, Rich" , "acme@ietf.org" < > acme@ietf.org> > *Subject: *Re: [Acme] Consensus on WGLC for draft-ietf-acme-star-03 > > > > Please reply by Wednesday, a week. > > > > *From: *"Salz, Rich" > *Date: *Wednesday, July 18, 2018 at 2:49 PM > *To: *"acme@ietf.org" > *Subject: *[Acme] Consensus on WGLC for draft-ietf-acme-star-03 > > > > At London, the WG decided to have draft-ietf-acme-star to WGLC, but the > chairs dropped the ball. > > > > Does anyone object to doing this? We would particularly like to also know > if you have read the document. > > > > Thanks. > ___ > 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
