speaking as wg co-chair:
On Dec 5, 2015, at 12:29 AM, Sandra Murphy wrote:
>
> So the draft draft-ietf-sidr-rfc6485bis-04 is being returned to the wg to
> address this problem and then to do a wglc (and IETF Last Call) before it is
> returned to the IESG.
>
>
Previous discussions on draft
On Dec 5, 2015, at 12:29 AM, Sandra Murphy wrote:
> The AD, the chairs and the authors have discussed the draft change suggested
> below.
>
> To summarize: The language Terry’s DISCUSS objects to is SHOULD
> recommendations of how to handle algorithm transitions, and being SHOULD
> only, le
The AD, the chairs and the authors have discussed the draft change suggested
below.
To summarize: The language Terry’s DISCUSS objects to is SHOULD
recommendations of how to handle algorithm transitions, and being SHOULD only,
leads to potential differences in implementation and operation choi
Hi Sandy,
On 20/11/2015 4:27 am, "Sandra Murphy" wrote:
>A bit of history here.
>
>After RFC6485 was published, it was discovered that it incorrectly used
>the same OID for all RPKI crypto uses, which conflicts with CMS specs and
>is inconsistent with known implementations.
I am aware of that.
A bit of history here.
After RFC6485 was published, it was discovered that it incorrectly used the
same OID for all RPKI crypto uses, which conflicts with CMS specs and is
inconsistent with known implementations.
The wg decided to create RFC6485bis, to correct the OID problem and the OID
probl
Terry Manderson has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-sidr-rfc6485bis-04: Discuss
When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)
Please refer to htt
