On 12/05/2013 03:33, Danny McPherson wrote:
On May 6, 2013, at 11:02 AM, Andrew Chi wrote:
Is this really a technical change? The document has two places that state X,
and one place (citing 5280) that states Y. This erratum replaces the Y
statement with X. All implementers have already imp
On 04/04/2012 18:21, David Mandelberg wrote:
On Wed, 2012-04-04 at 09:27 +1000, Geoff Huston wrote:
I'm tending to a "reject". Section 4.8.3 does not precisely apply to CRLs, so
to accept this would then require a further errata notice to amend this errata to narrow
down the scope of the AIA f
orted: 2012-03-26
Rejected by: Stewart Bryant (IESG)
Section: 4.8
Original Text
-
or non-critical. A certificate-using system MUST reject the
certificate if it encounters a critical extension it does not
recognize; however, a non-critical extension MAY be ignored if
I beg your pardon - I missed the "S" in the WG column.
Moving it over there
Stewart
On 06/02/2013 18:50, Chris Morrow wrote:
IDR not S-IDR ? (or I missed the tie-in to S-IDR...)
On 02/06/2013 01:47 PM, Stewart Bryant wrote:
The following errata was filed, but this is beyond the s
The following errata was filed, but this is beyond the scope
of an errata system to address.
I think that the right process is for the WG to decide the answer
and if necessary for someone to write up a short update to
RFC5291
I will close the errata with a pointer to this thread in the
SIDR arch
This late comment regarding draft-ietf-sidr-algorithm-agility was posted
to the IETF list in response to the IETF LC. Not everyone looks at the
main IETF list so I am relaying it to the SIDR list.
Stewart
Original Message
Subject: Re: [sidr] Last Call:
(Algorithm Agility
On 04/06/2012 20:37, Stephen Kent wrote:
At 9:35 AM -0700 6/4/12, Randy Bush wrote:
>> while i agree that the change is correct, this is not an erratum,
but an
actual change in semantics.
The text that was there could not be acted upon by a CA or an RP
requesting a cert. The cited field ar
I have decided to appoint Alexey Melnikov
as an additional
chair of the SIDR Working Group.
I have asked Alexey to initially focus on the process
aspects of running the SIDR WG, leaving Sandy
and Chris with more time to focus on the
technology aspects of the WG.
I appreciate the considerable
The requested additional SIDR session has been secheduled
Stewart
Original Message
Subject:sidr - Requested sessions have been scheduled for IETF 83
Date: Sat, 24 Mar 2012 03:16:22 -0700
From: "IETF Secretariat"
To: mur...@tis.com
CC: sidr-...@tools.ietf.org
I will make a request on your behalf for the Monday slot.
Stewart
___
sidr mailing list
sidr@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
The announcement of the SIDR virtual interim
failed to reach iesg-secret...@ietf.org within
the required two weeks notice. Additionally
the agenda was published on Sunday 17th March
and thus failed to meet the requirement that
"The agenda must be published at least one
week before the call or se
I would also like to extend my congratulations to all, including
the chairs, on completing this cluster of 17 RFCs.
I would also like to extend my thanks the authors for their
professionalism and commitment during the Auth48 process.
Finally, I would like to thank the RFC Editor for their work
i
Randy
The process:
If they are just nits, then just tell the editor either
now or in Auth48.
If they are technical errors such as those that would be
excepted under errata - i.e. the intent of the IETF was
clear but the wrong words were put in the draft -
I will sign them off in Auth48.
If the
I believe that version 24 addresses all of the actionable
comments that the authors have received and I propose
to continue with the publication process by requesting IESG
review.
Stewart
Original Message
Subject:Re: [sidr] I-D Action: draft-ietf-sidr-rpki-rtr-24.txt
D
* Stewart Bryant wrote:
Please review http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-sidr-ghostbusters-12.txt
The IANA is requested to register the media type application/
rpki-ghostbusters as follows
MIME media type name: application
MIME subtype name: rpki-ghostbusters
Required parameters: None
On 12/08/2011 17:56, Joe Touch wrote:
On 8/12/2011 2:48 AM, t.petch wrote:
I notice that there is no mention of which range the port number
should be from,
in section 12.
This has been a hot topic with TSVWG, so if guidance can be given -
eg we do not
care - then that could forestall later
Having reviewed the discussion on how to
proceed with this document, I believe that
there is a rough consensus to publish
draft-ietf-sidr-repos-struct as a Standards Track
document.
Please will the editor make the necessary changes.
Regards
Stewart
___
SIDR WG,
During IESG review the there was a preference for
draft-ietf-sidr-repos-struct to be Standards Track
rather than BCP.
Making this change does not require a new IETF LC.
I want to get sense of whether the WG would be OK
with this change of track.
If anyone has a reason not to change to
On Friday I will go down the list of sidr docs that are approved
making sure that there are no issues that I overlooked and
should be sending out a bunch of approval notices then.
- Stewart
On 11/05/2011 16:26, Stephen Kent wrote:
At 5:13 PM +0200 5/11/11, Randy Bush wrote:
if manifest and r
19 matches
Mail list logo
