Re: [ietf-privacy] PPM Review of RFC 1108

S Moonesamy <> Thu, 22 May 2014 07:41 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 459DF1A0125 for <>; Thu, 22 May 2014 00:41:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.441
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.441 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.651, T_DKIM_INVALID=0.01] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id edYiJwn4hPTT for <>; Thu, 22 May 2014 00:41:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 36BE81A011F for <>; Thu, 22 May 2014 00:41:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ([]) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s4M7fULR011812 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 22 May 2014 00:41:40 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple;; s=mail2010; t=1400744502; bh=JBJh+oA4bdIB4MZaOTWCc+R0Skyii+3lThoPY9KOuQM=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:In-Reply-To:References; b=WBOPPSJC1DqtIw4a1s/Yzn8KQqP0A03rNfZbJQG1f87TSFBYlFeiTL3yKsrl4/CXz DSWjPuvl1fR47GhOHqhhtkfEMZEO301HzsR5HEry6uj+jLM5yFHv/zXHcD1PRBloLj W7uSXNMOJBzPq5mTZqJ94g+NzF+9JzoALieIfBCU=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple;; s=mail; t=1400744502;; bh=JBJh+oA4bdIB4MZaOTWCc+R0Skyii+3lThoPY9KOuQM=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:In-Reply-To:References; b=WwzcAyeNWls+qYHN1pVShA84p8MQwHy18NES7YZxCQp1F9jPGEue5LUi83k7mUQlx MRTX8L6dqKtPPWWJXmaUXZIew3s+x5WDEXCW8HNJ1DWpLgU7caOqbRR6RTbWrmz/jt Zb3XDJ0WNxh/EAqiyVYMBWITYMCt2vi2WRMt7T/c=
Message-Id: <>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version
Date: Thu, 22 May 2014 00:39:00 -0700
To: Christian Huitema <>,
From: S Moonesamy <>
In-Reply-To: <031901cf7589$479266e0$d6b734a0$>
References: <02e501cf7573$c123ee40$436bcac0$> <> <031901cf7589$479266e0$d6b734a0$>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Subject: Re: [ietf-privacy] PPM Review of RFC 1108
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Internet Privacy Discussion List <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 22 May 2014 07:41:55 -0000

Hi Christian,
At 23:44 21-05-2014, Christian Huitema wrote:
>Oops. That's what I get for trying the lottery. The UI just provides the RFC
>text, which in the case of 1108 does not present its status.

I found it worthwhile to read your review as it provides a sense of 
what to look out for.

>As I mentioned before, the lottery should only return RFC that are on the
>standard track and are not obsolete. Otherwise, we are wasting the
>reviewers' efforts.

The reviewer could choose one of the RFCs (in black) in the list at

S. Moonesamy