Re: [dnsext] Last Call: draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-registry-fixes-08.txt (Applicability Statement: DNS Security (DNSSEC) DNSKEY Algorithm IANA Registry) to Proposed Standard

2011-06-02 Thread Edward Lewis
At 16:33 -0400 6/1/11, Andrew Sullivan wrote: I believe that nothing anywhere in the document suggests that one ought to guage conformance of software against the registry, and if you think it says that somewhere, I'd like a pointer to where. It would need to be fixed if it said that, but as

Concerns about the recent IPR Statement from Alcatel Lucent Related to RFC 6073

2011-06-02 Thread Russ Housley
I do not find any IPR disclosures against draft-ietf-pwe3-segmented-pw, the Internet-Draft that became RFC 6073. As a result, I am very concerned by the extremely late notice of patents by Alcatel Lucent, especially since RFC 6073 and the patent have a common author. This fact makes it very

Re: [dnsext] Last Call: draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-registry-fixes-08.txt (Applicability Statement: DNS Security (DNSSEC) DNSKEY Algorithm IANA Registry) to Proposed Standard

2011-06-02 Thread Scott Rose
On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 11:03 AM, Edward Lewis ed.le...@neustar.biz wrote: At 8:22 -0700 5/26/11, The IESG wrote: The IESG has received a request from the DNS Extensions WG (dnsext) to consider the following document: - 'Applicability Statement: DNS Security (DNSSEC) DNSKEY Algorithm IANA

RE: [IPsec] Last Call: draft-ietf-dime-ikev2-psk-diameter-06.txt (Diameter IKEv2 PSK: Pre-Shared Secret-based Support for IKEv2 Server to Diameter Server Interaction) to Proposed Standard

2011-06-02 Thread Cakulev, Violeta (Violeta)
Hi Yaron, Thanks for the comments. Please see inline [VC]. -Violeta -Original Message- From: ipsec-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ipsec-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Yaron Sheffer Sent: Sunday, May 22, 2011 2:38 PM To: ietf@ietf.org Cc: IPsecme WG;

Proposed text for IESG Processing of RFC Errata concerning RFC Metadata

2011-06-02 Thread Stewart Bryant
The IESG is considering making this statement on the processing of RFC Errata concerning RFC Metadata. We would appreciate community feedback. Please can we have feedback by Thursday 9th June. Thanks Stewart == Draft text for IESG Statement on RFC Metadata Date: xx-xxx- This IESG

Re: [dnsext] Last Call: draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-registry-fixes-08.txt (Applicability Statement: DNS Security (DNSSEC) DNSKEY Algorithm IANA Registry) to Proposed Standard

2011-06-02 Thread Edward Lewis
At 14:10 -0400 6/2/11, Scott Rose wrote: Then perhaps a wording change? It seems that it is confusion over the language rather than the purpose. A wording change is probably needed, but I can't suggest one because I can't determine what the goal is from what's currently written. I know

Proposed text for IESG Handling of Historic Status

2011-06-02 Thread Sean Turner
The IESG is considering making this statement on the IESG Handling of Historic status. We would appreciate community feedback. Please can we have feedback by Thursday 9th June. Thanks spt statement begins RFC 2026 states the following: A specification that has been superseded by a more

Re: Proposed text for IESG Handling of Historic Status

2011-06-02 Thread Sam Hartman
I'd prefer that we not clutter abstracts with instructions to the RFC editor and prefer that the IESG only recommend such statements in the introduction. I'm OK with whatever here though: the IESG should go do something intelligent in this space. ___

Re: Proposed text for IESG Handling of Historic Status

2011-06-02 Thread John C Klensin
Sean, Seems fine to me but, like Sam, I'd prefer to not clutter abstracts For a specification RFC that is rendered Historic by a new specification, the combination of an Obsoletes header and a note in the Introduction ought to be sufficient. While the IESG is considering this, I would encourage

RE: Proposed text for IESG Handling of Historic Status

2011-06-02 Thread Murray S. Kucherawy
-Original Message- From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Sam Hartman Sent: Thursday, June 02, 2011 12:47 PM To: Sean Turner Cc: ietf@ietf.org; The IESG Subject: Re: Proposed text for IESG Handling of Historic Status I'd prefer that we not

Re: Proposed text for IESG Handling of Historic Status

2011-06-02 Thread Scott Brim
On Jun 2, 2011 4:05 PM, John C Klensin john-i...@jck.com wrote: While the IESG is considering this, I would encourage you to also consider the model used to make a specification that is simply and obviously obsolete (and in A/S terms not recommended) Historic without having to have an I-D

Re: Proposed text for IESG Handling of Historic Status

2011-06-02 Thread Pete Resnick
On 6/2/11 4:45 PM, Scott Brim wrote: On Jun 2, 2011 4:05 PM, John C Klensin john-i...@jck.com mailto:john-i...@jck.com wrote: But for the no one cares about it any more cases, it seems like a lighter-weight procedure, such as a Last Call on the question does anyone believe that our

Re: Proposed text for IESG Handling of Historic Status

2011-06-02 Thread SM
At 01:04 PM 6/2/2011, John C Klensin wrote: While the IESG is considering this, I would encourage you to also consider the model used to make a specification that is simply and obviously obsolete (and in A/S terms not recommended) Historic without having to have an I-D written and processed into

Re: Proposed text for IESG Handling of Historic Status

2011-06-02 Thread John C Klensin
--On Thursday, June 02, 2011 17:51 -0500 Pete Resnick presn...@qualcomm.com wrote: Agree, but producing such a no one cares anymore RFC and getting it through the process should be lightweight enough already. It should slide right through. For better or worse, I don't believe that has

Weekly posting summary for ietf@ietf.org

2011-06-02 Thread Thomas Narten
Total of 68 messages in the last 7 days. script run at: Fri Jun 3 00:53:01 EDT 2011 Messages | Bytes| Who +--++--+ 17.65% | 12 | 53.78% | 632993 | jason_living...@cable.comcast.com 8.82% |6 | 4.38% |51500 |

WG Review: IPv6 Site Renumbering (6renum)

2011-06-02 Thread IESG Secretary
A new IETF working group has been proposed in the Operations and Management Area. The IESG has not made any determination as yet. The following draft charter was submitted, and is provided for informational purposes only. Please send your comments to the IESG mailing list (i...@ietf.org) by

Last Call: draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-advisory-01.txt (Advisory Guidelines for 6to4 Deployment) to Informational RFC

2011-06-02 Thread The IESG
The IESG has received a request from the IPv6 Operations WG (v6ops) to consider the following document: - 'Advisory Guidelines for 6to4 Deployment' draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-advisory-01.txt as an Informational RFC The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final comments

IETF 81 - Meeting Information

2011-06-02 Thread IETF Secretariat
81st IETF Meeting Quebec City, Canada July 24 - 29, 2011 Host: Research In Motion (RIM) Register online at: http://www.ietf.org/meetings/81/ 1. Registration 2. Social Event - Musee de la civilisation 3. Meeting and Training Schedule 4. Visas Letters of Invitation 5. Accommodations,

RFC 5591 on Transport Security Model for the Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP)

2011-06-02 Thread rfc-editor
This document is now a Draft Standard Protocol. RFC 5591 Title: Transport Security Model for the Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP) Author: D. Harrington, W. Hardaker Status: Standards Track Stream:

RFC 5590 on Transport Subsystem for the Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP)

2011-06-02 Thread rfc-editor
This document is now a Draft Standard Protocol. RFC 5590 Title: Transport Subsystem for the Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP) Author: D. Harrington, J. Schoenwaelder Status: Standards Track Stream:

RFC 5343 on Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP) Context EngineID Discovery

2011-06-02 Thread rfc-editor
This document is now a Draft Standard Protocol. RFC 5343 Title: Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP) Context EngineID Discovery Author: J. Schoenwaelder Status: Standards Track Stream: IETF