Re: [bfcpbis] Progressing 4582bis and 4583bis

Tom Kristensen <> Wed, 16 April 2014 17:27 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 505C21A01C9 for <>; Wed, 16 Apr 2014 10:27:10 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -9.772
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.772 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.272, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ibcqk4q_5y_k for <>; Wed, 16 Apr 2014 10:27:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id D9AA91A01AC for <>; Wed, 16 Apr 2014 10:27:07 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;;; l=5083; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1397669225; x=1398878825; h=message-id:date:from:mime-version:to:cc:subject: references:in-reply-to; bh=K+2THfWKFppNjQlFT0Xz/+rvIzLYH4Mg3mDq90DOmxo=; b=HV/KaCx/vMPdWO5LHWzitXks5eYgHlBamj5qpFkguimzyYMFX4AgbYEd GJ7d/hM5iGFI/ksREqVKLVTUUfIdnLKOCWzpCIvNV/2+l1taLken2uGUq 8zZkZvT/PZxGb05xmoGC5m6vdyK6agiE3JppzHik1CqIwgy5FwHvfi73y o=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos; i="4.97,873,1389744000"; d="scan'208,217"; a="19121149"
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTP; 16 Apr 2014 17:27:04 +0000
Received: from [] ([]) by (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s3GHR3qI027362; Wed, 16 Apr 2014 17:27:03 GMT
Message-ID: <>
Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2014 19:27:03 +0200
From: Tom Kristensen <>
Organization: Cisco
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv: Gecko/20101027 Fedora/3.0.10-1.fc12 Lightning/1.0b2pre Thunderbird/3.0.10
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Mary Barnes <>
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------050903000309070402050901"
Cc: "" <>, Tom Kristensen <>, Gonzalo Camarillo <>
Subject: Re: [bfcpbis] Progressing 4582bis and 4583bis
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: BFCPBIS working group discussion list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2014 17:27:10 -0000

On 04/16/2014 07:09 PM, Mary Barnes wrote:
> I did not see a response to this comment from Christer:

I just answered just that message and proposed not to restructure 
according to O/A procedures in  RFC 3264.

> Also, I have not yet reviewed the most recent version against my proto 
> write-up preparation reviews on Dec. 18, 2013.

Ah, I see. Hopefully, everything was taken care of.

> Once, the next revision is submitted, I'll do that within a week or so 
> and of course, we would want confirmation from Christer that he is 
> okay with the changes.  And, I'm assuming Charles will double-check 
> that all his editorial comments were addressed.

I need some guidance from the working group on the issues and on 
Charles' proposal. I just sent a mail to the list on that (moving O/A 
content to rfc4583bis only and what to do with RFC 5018 and UDP/TLS).

> I'm also finding it difficult looking at the archives to know which 
> version is being discussed. Including version numbers in the emails is 
> extremely helpful. Otherwise, I have to look at dates and see how they 
> match with the version that's active during that timeframe.  For 
> example, for this thread, I have no idea which version is being 
> referenced: 
> So, I don't know in which version any changes should appear.

OK. We'll be clearer on what versions we are dealing with from now on.

Charles did review the (last call) versions of the rfc4582bis and 
rfc4583bis drafts, i.e. the current versions that where submitted for 
IETF-89 in London.

-- Tom