speaking as regular ol' member
It has been some months. Sean Turner did respond to the last point. Is there
any comment from the authors?
--Sandy, speaking as regular ol' member
On May 20, 2014, at 1:49 PM, Sandra Murphy wrote:
>
> Speaking as regular ol' member.
>
> On Apr 21, 2014, at
Speaking as regular ol' member.
On Apr 21, 2014, at 11:55 PM, Geoff Huston wrote:
==
>>Except that the signed object signature algorithm OID will be
>>rsaEncryption which I think is still PKCS#1v1.5, but is not in section
>>5 of rfc4055.
>
>
>I am unsure what you mean he
On 14 Apr 2014, at 11:21 pm, Sandra Murphy wrote:
> Speaking as regular ol' member
>
> Some comments on draft-ietf-sidr-rfc6485bis-01.txt
>
> Most of my comments are related to the attempt to add a new OID to
> RFC6485, which previously had only one to specify.
>
> * The signature algor
yes - I quite agree that your first set of comments were entirely within scope
for this update to RFC6485, and well made. I will get around to a response to
indicate how these issues will be integrated into the draft.
Geoff
On 17 Apr 2014, at 1:31 am, Sandra Murphy wrote:
> Ruefully, I note
Ruefully, I note that the chairs requested that the comments be limited to
those needed to introduce the correction.
It is ironic that it was a discussion at IETF76 Nov 09 about this very part of
draft-ietf-sidr-rpki-algs-01 that led the Security AD to instruct the wg to
produce a transition pl
yes, the erratum exploded into a doc revision. and then, if we're
(excuse the royal we when you are doing the heavy lifting) issuing a
new doc, well of course it should be modern and correct. primrose path
indeed.
personally i have no dog in this fight. both directions have my
sympathies.
i do
On 15 Apr 2014, at 12:43 am, Sandra Murphy wrote:
> And one "I forgot":
>
> CAs and RPs SHOULD be capable of supporting a transition to allow for
> the phased introduction of additional encryption algorithms and key
> specifications,
>
> Is this any different than the algorithm agility i
The CPS was written well before 6916 was finished.
A reference to that RFC now makes sense.
Steve
On 4/14/14 10:43 AM, Sandra Murphy wrote:
And one "I forgot":
CAs and RPs SHOULD be capable of supporting a transition to allow for
the phased introduction of additional encryption algori
And one "I forgot":
CAs and RPs SHOULD be capable of supporting a transition to allow for
the phased introduction of additional encryption algorithms and key
specifications,
Is this any different than the algorithm agility in RFC6916? If so, I'd think
a reference would be good. If not,
Speaking as regular ol' member
Some comments on draft-ietf-sidr-rfc6485bis-01.txt
Most of my comments are related to the attempt to add a new OID to
RFC6485, which previously had only one to specify.
* The signature algorithm used in certificates, CRLs, and signed
objects is RSA
10 matches
Mail list logo
