Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-sidr-rfc6485bis-04
Sandra Murphy <sandy@tislabs.com> Tue, 03 November 2015 18:05 UTC
Return-Path: <sandy@tislabs.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 2F6341B3425 for <gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 3 Nov 2015 10:05:09 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.911
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.911 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] 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 Lqx-jolbiud8 for <gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 3 Nov 2015 10:05:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: from walnut.tislabs.com (walnut.tislabs.com [192.94.214.200]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D93071B3424 for <gen-art@ietf.org>; Tue, 3 Nov 2015 10:05:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: from nova.tislabs.com (unknown [10.66.1.77]) by walnut.tislabs.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3A13A28B0041; Tue, 3 Nov 2015 13:05:07 -0500 (EST)
Received: from [IPv6:::1] (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by nova.tislabs.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AACDB1F8035; Tue, 3 Nov 2015 13:05:05 -0500 (EST)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\))
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_54E6EB75-B8F8-430D-813D-1D8B9C1BA75C"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="pgp-sha512"
X-Pgp-Agent: GPGMail 2.5.1
From: Sandra Murphy <sandy@tislabs.com>
In-Reply-To: <001801d112f7$3f743ee0$be5cbca0$@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 04 Nov 2015 03:04:51 +0900
Message-Id: <725EAE7A-C56A-4485-A44F-05452A5FEB0D@tislabs.com>
References: <001801d112f7$3f743ee0$be5cbca0$@gmail.com>
To: Roni Even <ron.even.tlv@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/AV0pCNgkM51Epul-M3tN6a_QEHg>
Cc: draft-ietf-sidr-rfc6485bis.all@tools.ietf.org, IETF Gen-ART <gen-art@ietf.org>, Sandra Murphy <sandy@tislabs.com>
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 18:05:09 -0000
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