IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-gost

Stephen Kent <kent@bbn.com> Mon, 15 February 2010 14:42 UTC

Return-Path: <kent@bbn.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 1E3023A7353 for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 15 Feb 2010 06:42:52 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.363
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.363 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.236, BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 lkDtsVsXxn83 for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 15 Feb 2010 06:42:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp.bbn.com (smtp.bbn.com [128.33.0.80]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5FC0B3A71A6 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 15 Feb 2010 06:42:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: from dommiel.bbn.com ([192.1.122.15] helo=[192.168.1.5]) by smtp.bbn.com with esmtp (Exim 4.71 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <kent@bbn.com>) id 1Nh2BR-000DHM-AG; Mon, 15 Feb 2010 09:44:21 -0500
Mime-Version: 1.0
Message-Id: <p06240801c79f0d0a972c@[192.168.1.5]>
In-Reply-To: <a06240800c79b554ba0e0@[10.31.200.127]>
References: <p06240806c799d87e7406@[128.89.89.170]> <4B74646F.3080904@ogud.com> <p06240805c79b294d87a8@[192.168.1.5]> <a06240800c79b554ba0e0@[10.31.200.127]>
Date: Mon, 15 Feb 2010 09:42:12 -0500
To: Edward Lewis <Ed.Lewis@neustar.biz>
From: Stephen Kent <kent@bbn.com>
Subject: Re: draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-gost
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Cc: ietf@ietf.org, Olafur Gudmundsson <ogud@ogud.com>, iesg@iesg.org
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, 15 Feb 2010 14:42:52 -0000

At 2:18 PM -0500 2/12/10, Edward Lewis wrote:
>At 10:57 -0500 2/12/10, Stephen Kent wrote:
>
>>If we look at what the CP developed in the SIDR WG for the RPKI says, the
>>answer is the IESG (going forward, after an initial set of algs are adopted
>>based on the SIDR WG process). In the IPSEC, TLS, and SMIME contexts, the WGs
>>themselves have made the decisions, which the IESG then approves by virtue of
>>the usual standards track RFC approval process. I do not believe that the
>>criteria have been documented uniformly across these WGs.
>
>What is "CP?"

Sorry for the acronym ambiguity. the CP is the certificate policy 
(for the RPKI).  Every major PKI has a CP. These documents follow the 
outline provided in RFC 3647.

Steve

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email