IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: draft-housley-two-maturity-levels

Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com> Mon, 25 October 2010 22:25 UTC

Return-Path: <housley@vigilsec.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5B78E3A68D3 for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 25 Oct 2010 15:25:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.39
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.39 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.165, BAYES_00=-2.599, DATE_IN_PAST_03_06=0.044, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id a27dOR5pSzCH for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 25 Oct 2010 15:25:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from odin.smetech.net (mail.smetech.net [208.254.26.82]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 710593A6856 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 25 Oct 2010 15:25:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (unknown [208.254.26.81]) by odin.smetech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7D2269A474E for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 25 Oct 2010 18:27:38 -0400 (EDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at smetech.net
Received: from odin.smetech.net ([208.254.26.82]) by localhost (ronin.smetech.net [208.254.26.81]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id QKTSNC5mSWF4 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 25 Oct 2010 18:27:31 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.4] (pool-96-255-39-48.washdc.fios.verizon.net [96.255.39.48]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by odin.smetech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0AC7C9A474B for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 25 Oct 2010 18:27:38 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <4CC5CE36.5020503@vigilsec.com>
Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2010 14:36:38 -0400
From: Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.11) Gecko/20101013 Lightning/1.0b2 Thunderbird/3.1.5
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: draft-housley-two-maturity-levels
References: <20070.1278510136@erosen-linux> <4C3498CF.90206@dcrocker.net> <4C349E0E.7030904@gmx.de> <4C349ED8.6080706@bbiw.net> <4C7EB142.3030209@vigilsec.com> <4CA54E97.9050208@gmail.com> <201010010314.o913EZob020650@sj-core-3.cisco.com> <4CA557A2.5050002@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <4CA557A2.5050002@gmail.com>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.1.1
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2010 22:25:47 -0000

I'd like to hear from the community about pushing forward with this
proposal or dropping it.

At least one other proposal was raised.  My reading of this mail list is
that the proposal in draft-housley-two-maturity-levels has more support.

Since the -00 cut-off for IETF 79 has passed, I am assuming that no
other proposals are going to be raised.

Should I be seeking a sponsor for this draft?

Russ

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email