Subject: [Acme] Unparallelizing roll-over

From: Richard Barnes <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2016 17:54:19 -0400

At the meeting, my slides on un-parallelizing roll-over were ambiguous as
to what would be signed and carried where in my proposal.  Rather than
trying to paraphrase again, I just wrote up a PR that implements the
proposal.

#164 - Unparallelize signatures on key-change
https://github.com/ietf-wg-acme/acme/pull/164

Let me know if that clarifies things, and if folks agree that it's a good
idea.

Thanks,
--Richard

---

From: Andrew Ayer <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2016 15:41:30 -0700

On Thu, 28 Jul 2016 17:54:19 -0400
Richard Barnes <[email-masked]> wrote:

> At the meeting, my slides on un-parallelizing roll-over were
> ambiguous as to what would be signed and carried where in my
> proposal.  Rather than trying to paraphrase again, I just wrote up a
> PR that implements the proposal.
> 
> Let me know if that clarifies things, and if folks agree that it's a
> good idea.

This looks sane to me, and easier to implement than the current
rollover mechanism.

Regards,
Andrew