IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Acme] draft-ietf-acme

Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com> Wed, 12 August 2015 18:44 UTC

Return-Path: <ted.ietf@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: acme@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: acme@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5BA7C1A1BDD for <acme@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 12 Aug 2015 11:44:37 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id LiKUBmgjLPQg for <acme@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 12 Aug 2015 11:44:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wi0-x234.google.com (mail-wi0-x234.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c05::234]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DF3EA1A06E9 for <acme@ietf.org>; Wed, 12 Aug 2015 11:44:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by wibhh20 with SMTP id hh20so42301425wib.0 for <acme@ietf.org>; Wed, 12 Aug 2015 11:44:34 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=YSntjhmJ9YypdOXKn2gPkzLgDdoOrVHQEXFPDYPETP8=; b=Nk5F9T2H/sj4wy5V9eYCzHmAr5POU6lgrxD5peJe+qQcc+WBu3HfkXd3Jx63o2H9pZ MBRGu+NC+BzGvVslI1mtH2HBJVrEMuCHc3Db5vX6PFTgGlu2BbL/Kv5j9uBXpe4wHjxu xuFZ7pSJJROLDe2vzUhgDAzvfOBRn+sxY+6lSGUohYX+VTYm78BaWDho8Od4DO/0nF1+ i0gLj6LX4blvUqJnKFSD4rU7Re1Lajpg8wKcVIWlcW2GT3K3a85NIz4dZY0GLaCunDQo OhUJXQ5hHwXcDaebH9py+1fS5TSecWI5PWYuf1P1E0LDjqY3EYy36tjn1sDB7cE5BFES IAAQ==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.180.186.7 with SMTP id fg7mr49082419wic.40.1439405074700; Wed, 12 Aug 2015 11:44:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.194.17.68 with HTTP; Wed, 12 Aug 2015 11:44:34 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <55CB8EFF.8060806@eff.org>
References: <CA+9kkMAF4r_oj31gz6u9mQPSLrrPxS-e2Fpwj0mFJR=qa1xkgQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAHOTMVLuO_Qa+psGk7r0nxd6Fj-Rx=ho2H0Lp_wrsTkeiYGeeg@mail.gmail.com> <CABkgnnXSi623tNMTcWXFeGm48bbJTPG_3Epi_kKxUYBppAfc3g@mail.gmail.com> <CAHOTMVKi=+zQvno+LNmJD=1=vYO3N-8_+GOeJLdgeqi+XJ5wbg@mail.gmail.com> <55CB8EFF.8060806@eff.org>
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2015 11:44:34 -0700
Message-ID: <CA+9kkMCNO1uvErj8U_nz9eZt42Ub27Jt4sfJrYO3zUUBjv5ysg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com>
To: Jacob Hoffman-Andrews <jsha@eff.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a11342e842a5cfb051d219c99"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/acme/eZR1NFp9j29k99B1277cflhJcT8>
Cc: Tony Arcieri <bascule@gmail.com>, "acme@ietf.org" <acme@ietf.org>, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>, "Salz, Rich" <rsalz@akamai.com>
Subject: Re: [Acme] draft-ietf-acme
X-BeenThere: acme@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Automated Certificate Management Environment <acme.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/acme>, <mailto:acme-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/acme/>
List-Post: <mailto:acme@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:acme-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/acme>, <mailto:acme-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2015 18:44:37 -0000

On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 11:22 AM, Jacob Hoffman-Andrews <jsha@eff.org>
wrote:

> I agree with Tony here. I'm not familiar with IETF processes, but I
> assume adopting something even as a working draft conveys some
> preliminary notion of acceptance. Is that correct? If so, we should aim
> to fix this large outstanding bug before adopting the current draft.
>

​So, this is a common misconception.  Adopting a draft doesn't mean you
think it is done or even that it has no known issues; it's a statement by
the working group that this is a starting point.  ​Think of it like picking
a github repo to work from--you want concrete text to present diffs to, and
picking a draft to work from lets you do that.   I believe the group so far
believes that the diffs should be against draft-barnes; that's all this
means.

regards,

Ted

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email