Re: Last Call: 'TLS User Mapping Extension' to Proposed Standard

Bill Strahm <bill@strahm.net> Mon, 20 February 2006 01:19 UTC

Message-ID: <43F91981.7070900@strahm.net>
Date: Sun, 19 Feb 2006 17:21:05 -0800
From: Bill Strahm <bill@strahm.net>
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.7 (Windows/20050923)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com>
References: <200602190538.k1J5ciVS024829@bright.research.att.com> <7.0.0.16.2.20060219172051.05b12120@vigilsec.com>
In-Reply-To: <7.0.0.16.2.20060219172051.05b12120@vigilsec.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: Bill Fenner <fenner@research.att.com>, tls@ietf.org, ietf@ietf.org, iesg@ietf.org, "Steven M. Bellovin" <smb@cs.columbia.edu>
Subject: Re: Last Call: 'TLS User Mapping Extension' to Proposed Standard
Precedence: list
Errors-To: ietf-bounces@ietf.org

I saw all of the huff, and while I agree with it, I am more concerned about

Appendix A. IPR Disclosure

    TBD

What does that mean, and more specifically is a document with a TBD 
section really ready for last call at all ?

Bill
Russ Housley wrote:
> I misunderstood the original question.  I'll get it fixed or withdraw 
> the Last Call.
> 
> Russ
> 
> 
> At 12:38 AM 2/19/2006, Bill Fenner wrote:
> 
>> >Can we have a Proposed Standard
>> >without the IETF having change control?
>>
>> No.  RFC3978 says, in section 5.2 where it describes the derivative
>> works limitation that's present in draft-santesson-tls-ume, "These
>> notices may not be used with any standards-track document".
>>
>>   Bill
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf mailing list
> Ietf@ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
> 
> 


_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Last Call: 'TLS User Mapping Extension' to Pr… Eric Rescorla
Re: Last Call: 'TLS User Mapping Extension' to Pr… Steven M. Bellovin
Re: Last Call: 'TLS User Mapping Extension' to Pr… Bill Fenner
Re: Last Call: 'TLS User Mapping Extension' to Pr… Russ Housley
Re: Last Call: 'TLS User Mapping Extension' to Pr… Russ Housley
Is round-trip time no longer a concern? (was: Re:… Dave Crocker
Re: Is round-trip time no longer a concern? Russ Allbery
Re: Is round-trip time no longer a concern? (was:… Steven M. Bellovin
Re: Last Call: 'TLS User Mapping Extension' to Pr… Bill Strahm
Re: Is round-trip time no longer a concern? (was:… Dave Cridland
Re: Is round-trip time no longer a concern? Harald Tveit Alvestrand
Re: Is round-trip time no longer a concern? Peter Dambier
RE: Last Call: 'TLS User Mapping Extension' to Pr… Pasi.Eronen
Re: Is round-trip time no longer a concern? Eric Rescorla
Re: Is round-trip time no longer a concern? Keith Moore
Re: Is round-trip time no longer a concern? Dave Cridland
Re: Is round-trip time no longer a concern? Dave Crocker
Re: Is round-trip time no longer a concern? Eric Rescorla
Re: Is round-trip time no longer a concern? Tony Finch
Re: Is round-trip time no longer a concern? Steven M. Bellovin
Re: Is round-trip time no longer a concern? Dave Crocker
RE: Last Call: 'TLS User Mapping Extension' to Pr… Gray, Eric
RE: [TLS] Re: Last Call: 'TLS User Mapping Extens… Pasi.Eronen
Re: Last Call: 'TLS User Mapping Extension' to Pr… Bernard Aboba
RE: Last Call: 'TLS User Mapping Extension' to Pr… Russ Housley
RE: [TLS] Re: Last Call: 'TLS User Mapping Extens… Russ Housley
RE: [TLS] Re: Last Call: 'TLS User Mapping Extens… Stefan Santesson
RE: Last Call: 'TLS User Mapping Extension' to Pr… Stefan Santesson
RE: Last Call: 'TLS User Mapping Extension' to Pr… Stefan Santesson
RE: Re: [TLS] Re: Last Call: 'TLS User Mapping Ex… Stefan Santesson
RE: Re: [TLS] Re: Last Call: 'TLS User Mapping Ex… Stefan Santesson
RE: Re: [TLS] Re: Last Call: 'TLS User Mapping Ex… Russ Housley
Re: Last Call: 'TLS User Mapping Extension' to Pr… Simon Josefsson
Re: Last Call: 'TLS User Mapping Extension' to Pr… Jeffrey Hutzelman
RE: [TLS] Re: Last Call: 'TLS User Mapping Extens… Ari Medvinsky