Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-sidr-rfc6485bis-04
"Roni Even" <ron.even.tlv@gmail.com> Tue, 03 November 2015 23:23 UTC
Return-Path: <ron.even.tlv@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6C0EE1B359E for <gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 3 Nov 2015 15:23:04 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
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 WNT6NRyxfasQ for <gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 3 Nov 2015 15:23:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pa0-x22f.google.com (mail-pa0-x22f.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c03::22f]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5AED71B3597 for <gen-art@ietf.org>; Tue, 3 Nov 2015 15:23:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: by pasz6 with SMTP id z6so32375766pas.2 for <gen-art@ietf.org>; Tue, 03 Nov 2015 15:23:03 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=from:to:cc:references:in-reply-to:subject:date:message-id :mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:thread-index :content-language; bh=oKix5vKONaxy/GNiXjRVfQP1OXr+glS0I1sxbGyvblk=; b=yydk4sn1m1sOnGch8wKlk7u7fP/2+/wyI9NHeRBQ4c/um6NYZpuAjdWZrpq07PB0xJ dWMVuIO91APww5NsqZw4m3XVZ6ZrSQgKXBMFChEP6inTIuo+6NJMziHGWG3OzLDHLL8C T9tI6KO52Ba/MWh/OObF9yd6L+Qyna2qFkqhRhI2lQlvspwwhy69Tnoat/aZq1u9u6Al Z0W02q0X1jvKddWRfszQ4Yc6Hg8p8ER8Ph4lepUeafnDOFQhH5KXCn1ojO1DOFzEjnSd vHO3QfAdfKNzylGnkLK+QDiV88bbYRPYsc2rnduXTezs3zsLVLVRVDlVIjVt7Tw7GhSm HYjA==
X-Received: by 10.68.172.2 with SMTP id ay2mr36529194pbc.88.1446592983062; Tue, 03 Nov 2015 15:23:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: from RoniPC (122x210x83x163.ap122.ftth.ucom.ne.jp. [122.210.83.163]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id qd5sm31445591pbc.73.2015.11.03.15.23.00 (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128/128); Tue, 03 Nov 2015 15:23:01 -0800 (PST)
From: Roni Even <ron.even.tlv@gmail.com>
To: 'Sandra Murphy' <sandy@tislabs.com>
References: <001801d112f7$3f743ee0$be5cbca0$@gmail.com> <725EAE7A-C56A-4485-A44F-05452A5FEB0D@tislabs.com>
In-Reply-To: <725EAE7A-C56A-4485-A44F-05452A5FEB0D@tislabs.com>
Date: Wed, 04 Nov 2015 01:22:52 +0200
Message-ID: <009d01d1168e$91b154a0$b513fde0$@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0
Thread-Index: AQFZgi5yQ6fw2cls3ck0V8Ia+RxOHQFXCsYLn29gQ0A=
Content-Language: he
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/5cz0RQs3_Tl_Op02pseVt978C7Y>
Cc: draft-ietf-sidr-rfc6485bis.all@tools.ietf.org, 'IETF Gen-ART' <gen-art@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-sidr-rfc6485bis-04
X-BeenThere: gen-art@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: "GEN-ART: General Area Review Team" <gen-art.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/gen-art>, <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/gen-art/>
List-Post: <mailto:gen-art@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art>, <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 03 Nov 2015 23:23:04 -0000
Sandy, Thanks, it is now clear to me Roni -----Original Message----- From: Sandra Murphy [mailto:sandy@tislabs.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 03, 2015 8:05 PM To: Roni Even Cc: Sandra Murphy; draft-ietf-sidr-rfc6485bis.all@tools.ietf.org; IETF Gen-ART Subject: Re: Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-sidr-rfc6485bis-04 Reducing the cc list, since I don't know if you intended a question below. Thanks for the review. On Oct 30, 2015, at 6:42 PM, Roni Even <ron.even.tlv@gmail.com> wrote: > > Nits/editorial comments: > > I assume that the computability with RFC6485 as discussed in section 8 was discussed in the WG Not sure this is a question or if you wanted an answer. The requirement to accept both signature algorithm IDs comes from section 2 and has been there since the -00 version, so yes, reviewed by the wg. The wg also discussed that all known implementations (there are a small number at this stage of deployment) accept the signature algorithm ID specified in this document and do not adhere to rfc6485 as spec'd. (This is noted in the shepherd document). So the compatibility issue is mostly moot. -Sandy