IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [IPsec] AD review of draft-ietf-ipsecme-rfc4307bis

Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca> Fri, 06 January 2017 20:56 UTC

Return-Path: <paul@nohats.ca>
X-Original-To: ipsec@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipsec@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 755D5129EBD for <ipsec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 6 Jan 2017 12:56:40 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.1
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.1 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-3.1] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=nohats.ca
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id CnDV_xIcn2DY for <ipsec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 6 Jan 2017 12:56:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx.nohats.ca (mx.nohats.ca [193.110.157.68]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5E9CA129EAB for <ipsec@ietf.org>; Fri, 6 Jan 2017 12:56:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by mx.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3twH0N0Q3Xz3Tp; Fri, 6 Jan 2017 21:56:36 +0100 (CET)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=nohats.ca; s=default; t=1483736196; bh=GVbYDx20ypIubbacfXM0kvUXuxQIeZFHyIJkYS2gyd4=; h=Date:From:To:cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References; b=K/pXffACDFyAElr/l8H9P6KFEra6XlkKlx5igo8ev7+6W/V545qmnmHELBN3Y1T22 S8z+wpmznlJf+2EV+PnvsNivOGg01EY7haCCO2aTAzrd5iZXF3S9BwJL9DFeHJPEeH /0eeCSiIcLOtUj8WgCK0okEfqf6RyJfett82pwlo=
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at mx.nohats.ca
Received: from mx.nohats.ca ([IPv6:::1]) by localhost (mx.nohats.ca [IPv6:::1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Vqggh5q31szI; Fri, 6 Jan 2017 21:56:34 +0100 (CET)
Received: from bofh.nohats.ca (206-248-139-105.dsl.teksavvy.com [206.248.139.105]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPS; Fri, 6 Jan 2017 21:56:34 +0100 (CET)
Received: by bofh.nohats.ca (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 1F9F4CA34A9; Fri, 6 Jan 2017 15:56:31 -0500 (EST)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.10.3 bofh.nohats.ca 1F9F4CA34A9
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by bofh.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 074ED4942C7F; Fri, 6 Jan 2017 15:56:30 -0500 (EST)
Date: Fri, 06 Jan 2017 15:56:30 -0500
From: Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca>
To: Kathleen Moriarty <kathleen.moriarty.ietf@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAHbuEH7RROEheNbAJ9RpE+V8TiP1DYa92CbXEMQcas7wDUoYKg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <alpine.LRH.2.20.1701061555210.2069@bofh.nohats.ca>
References: <CAHbuEH4pqTK-kc65FVh98X-t+YsVe+9=J7_PjB8hESsY+5=-PQ@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.LRH.2.20.1612121254150.14930@bofh.nohats.ca> <CAHbuEH4MgqDpWR_yc21Z8-HNU1Pvy8Hyz0NvW9qntwtxFuZmmw@mail.gmail.com> <CAHbuEH7RROEheNbAJ9RpE+V8TiP1DYa92CbXEMQcas7wDUoYKg@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.20 (LRH 67 2015-01-07)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipsec/cSbMNzWi6govmOhNJKFIQ5zOjTA>
Cc: "ipsec@ietf.org" <ipsec@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [IPsec] AD review of draft-ietf-ipsecme-rfc4307bis
X-BeenThere: ipsec@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussion of IPsec protocols <ipsec.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ipsec>, <mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ipsec/>
List-Post: <mailto:ipsec@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec>, <mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 06 Jan 2017 20:56:40 -0000

On Fri, 6 Jan 2017, Kathleen Moriarty wrote:

> I never got an answer as to whether or not I should wait on the last call, so I pushed it through.  No comments
> came in during the holiday period.  Should last call be extended?  Or does the WG feel the reason was because the
> document is ready?  If the latter then I'll get it ready for an IESG telechat.  I'd prefer to put it on 2/2/2017
> as there are already a fair number of documents on the telechat in 2 weeks.

If you schedule it for 2/2 then I guess we can give people another two
weeks for comments? Although I'm not sure if that means we will get
more comments :)

Paul

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email