IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: draft-housley-two-maturity-levels

Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com> Thu, 24 March 2011 16:11 UTC

Return-Path: <bob.hinden@gmail.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 4A60128C0F8 for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 24 Mar 2011 09:11:59 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -103.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, 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 uXsKm43sa6RB for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 24 Mar 2011 09:11:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-iy0-f172.google.com (mail-iy0-f172.google.com [209.85.210.172]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ABF7D28C0CE for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 24 Mar 2011 09:11:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by iyi12 with SMTP id 12so123216iyi.31 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 24 Mar 2011 09:13:24 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:subject:mime-version:content-type:from :in-reply-to:date:cc:content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references :to:x-mailer; bh=LfyPRKB7BidvqzYasfLrHG19+pR/JqnyU6FtQfjSIQc=; b=oG9IKbco7Xf1k1+zYPo7KJ4x5urcV1z+YWujdL5/JiNDkndb03aCg98jVAPXZtf+sO lPt7He9tm+pF28s3NTFkywthG0gk2m3XaiD4xUUu8kukfCpDWT9ABx1jK7CbU+j2TLIu 9FUsK8DbAeqmqR0OFjcButVdyBe8emQ26+aAY=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=subject:mime-version:content-type:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to:x-mailer; b=QcDHjPCl9RgItEfR6TXxnhblDiuMkEj9j2nJntULOXpzZg89GDIRVgFaTSBcI8VXbX SMekdDRlXrTolG/+QcDukVc1u5mZVP9ZzmlkwAf8zWYRlfYVqH0i6BG7BovjU+vYs6QJ f/c9EfRLMfjDMyumVse03FrGhYhYBcvc+240I=
Received: by 10.231.122.42 with SMTP id j42mr5751990ibr.69.1300983204679; Thu, 24 Mar 2011 09:13:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.12.209.126] ([217.194.73.178]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id he40sm29131ibb.33.2011.03.24.09.13.17 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Thu, 24 Mar 2011 09:13:19 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: draft-housley-two-maturity-levels
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1082)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
From: Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <4D8B6AD7.2040102@dcrocker.net>
Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2011 17:13:14 +0100
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <0FC1DB11-05C6-4B9C-830D-528B0EA092E4@gmail.com>
References: <4B803580-664C-42B3-92A7-712452F12BA3@gmail.com> <01NTJJR8423E000CVY@mauve.mrochek.com> <20101027171037.GB3162@nsn.com> <63DD35D1-1C25-401D-8C05-992A2D11E3DE@vigilsec.com> <4D3E4DFD.4060906@att.com> <AFB68E6F-A22B-414D-941A-35BB57F4F0E0@vigilsec.com> <4D53E92A.4080008@att.com> <4D5412B4.9050600@bbiw.net> <4D541897.2050206@att.com> <4B0C7B49-F997-46D9-92BE-956983837CF1@vigilsec.com> <4D574B08.2060905@att.com> <7AF5A8CC-9B2D-45FB-80CB-34D68098336B@vigilsec.com> <4D8B6418.90800@gmail.com> <4D8B665A.8000402@joelhalpern.com> <4D8B67F3.6030203@gmail.com> <4D8B6AD7.2040102@dcrocker.net>
To: dcrocker@bbiw.net
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1082)
Cc: Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com>, IETF <ietf@ietf.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: Thu, 24 Mar 2011 16:11:59 -0000

On Mar 24, 2011, at 5:01 PM, Dave CROCKER wrote:

> 
> 
> On 3/24/2011 4:49 PM, Mykyta Yevstifeyev wrote:>
>>>> Another proposal as for your document. So, it fails to mention what are
>>>> the procedures for reclassification of Standards Track RFCs to Historic.
> 
> 
> Generally, the document tries to limit itself to discussion of what it changes.
> 
> There are no changes proposed for moving to Historic. (The question of Historic has not been part of the many discussions about streamlining the standards labeling.)
> 
> Hence that issue is out of scope for the document.

+1

Bob

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email