IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Acme] Agenda for IETF 105

Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu> Wed, 17 July 2019 17:59 UTC

Return-Path: <kaduk@mit.edu>
X-Original-To: acme@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: acme@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AD8EB1208FC for <acme@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 17 Jul 2019 10:59:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.199
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.199 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id PkxgeTOfQGeq for <acme@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 17 Jul 2019 10:59:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from outgoing.mit.edu (outgoing-auth-1.mit.edu [18.9.28.11]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B0094120900 for <acme@ietf.org>; Wed, 17 Jul 2019 10:59:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from kduck.mit.edu ([24.16.140.251]) (authenticated bits=56) (User authenticated as kaduk@ATHENA.MIT.EDU) by outgoing.mit.edu (8.14.7/8.12.4) with ESMTP id x6HHxDRB024986 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Wed, 17 Jul 2019 13:59:15 -0400
Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2019 12:59:12 -0500
From: Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu>
To: Rob Stradling <rob@sectigo.com>
Cc: Yoav Nir <ynir.ietf@gmail.com>, IETF ACME <acme@ietf.org>
Message-ID: <20190717175912.GK58520@kduck.mit.edu>
References: <893AF799-FFBF-4120-98F9-AF7F7E985EC9@gmail.com> <052869e4-408e-3da8-dd83-7c6453b450ee@sectigo.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <052869e4-408e-3da8-dd83-7c6453b450ee@sectigo.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/acme/BRPJ3UrJBub3Fa3YXM4PGh1-VE4>
Subject: Re: [Acme] Agenda for IETF 105
X-BeenThere: acme@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Automated Certificate Management Environment <acme.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/acme>, <mailto:acme-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/acme/>
List-Post: <mailto:acme@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:acme-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/acme>, <mailto:acme-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2019 17:59:31 -0000

On Fri, Jul 12, 2019 at 02:03:14AM +0000, Rob Stradling wrote:
> On 11/07/2019 20:50, Yoav Nir wrote:
> > Hi, all
> > 
> > We are putting together the agenda for IETF 105.
> <snip>
> > If you have some other business for the WG meeting, please bring it up now.
> 
> Do the 6 "Reported" errata for RFC8555 need to be discussed during a WG 
> meeting before they can be formally verified or rejected?
> 
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=8555

Formally speaking, errata reports can best be modelled as getting processed
at the whim of any AD that feels responsible for picking them up.  But
(barring other pressing items), discussion and consensus at a WG meeting is
a great way to give an AD confidence on their proper disposition...

-Ben

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email