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

"Waltermire, David A. (Fed)" <david.waltermire@nist.gov> Mon, 09 January 2017 15:24 UTC

Return-Path: <david.waltermire@nist.gov>
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 CDBAE1295D9 for <ipsec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 9 Jan 2017 07:24:14 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=nistgov.onmicrosoft.com
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 SNPLTVD-_fru for <ipsec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 9 Jan 2017 07:24:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: from gcc01-dm2-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-dm2gcc01on0111.outbound.protection.outlook.com [23.103.201.111]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 34205129D68 for <ipsec@ietf.org>; Mon, 9 Jan 2017 07:23:57 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=nistgov.onmicrosoft.com; s=selector1-nist-gov; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version; bh=oxAuCwb695fn4+T+wustJejNiejGLUv5W9aHbvP2UGc=; b=r6KHi4HR34buRxupku/1WWGHk2aM1swLp6uPyo9VBbPM2EeLXqF1eAu13m7YLsH43HP20zPo+G42wMMYsM5akk8UMHuv2KZ/zlhdwKJBkvztVHp2yo6yBD3W2GVH73OPfcjIGWSI+TuPl/o5Oy2R3igzLZo2F5yhiG/J2ZUmtiE=
Received: from BN6PR09MB1427.namprd09.prod.outlook.com (10.173.202.15) by BN6PR09MB1426.namprd09.prod.outlook.com (10.173.202.14) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA384_P384) id 15.1.829.7; Mon, 9 Jan 2017 15:23:56 +0000
Received: from BN6PR09MB1427.namprd09.prod.outlook.com ([10.173.202.15]) by BN6PR09MB1427.namprd09.prod.outlook.com ([10.173.202.15]) with mapi id 15.01.0829.013; Mon, 9 Jan 2017 15:23:55 +0000
From: "Waltermire, David A. (Fed)" <david.waltermire@nist.gov>
To: Kathleen Moriarty <kathleen.moriarty.ietf@gmail.com>
Thread-Topic: [IPsec] AD review of draft-ietf-ipsecme-rfc4307bis
Thread-Index: AQHSUkrNg8o7s6UlrEiAEvxXPjoQEqEEoY6AgAZ0WQCAIQK7AIAAAX0AgAABTYCABEkuwIAABESAgAALChA=
Date: Mon, 09 Jan 2017 15:23:55 +0000
Message-ID: <BN6PR09MB14273F5C06C96020659D5733F0640@BN6PR09MB1427.namprd09.prod.outlook.com>
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> <alpine.LRH.2.20.1701061555210.2069@bofh.nohats.ca> <CAHbuEH46LQ=rk4aTqcbCa+=De5HPwbGBRQQOCzdV0tB0pz1wfw@mail.gmail.com> <BN6PR09MB1427FEFE4970F7DDB412AAD9F0640@BN6PR09MB1427.namprd09.prod.outlook.com> <CAHbuEH6pYvWk79KgjdW=L7cnxm5vQZOhRcFu4mPUOE2+Ndu_TQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAHbuEH6pYvWk79KgjdW=L7cnxm5vQZOhRcFu4mPUOE2+Ndu_TQ@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
authentication-results: spf=none (sender IP is ) smtp.mailfrom=david.waltermire@nist.gov;
x-originating-ip: [129.6.224.58]
x-ld-processed: 2ab5d82f-d8fa-4797-a93e-054655c61dec,ExtAddr
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: 9673cddb-8b67-4a53-9abf-08d438a386d6
x-microsoft-antispam: UriScan:;BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID:(22001);SRVR:BN6PR09MB1426;
x-microsoft-exchange-diagnostics: 1; BN6PR09MB1426; 7:bHB5W587K3pq9Gn/tBkI8DAIHO0eRetV+wR2hy/9SQZ7ZKo0TZkHpfD2nEx6h19VuIsNzCGhnhpfz23MVniLdVy91tE2PYcpHpUDe6N9rcrCEs6oE20AnddqkcyezyII1DYcXQmDvDPCoP+QJs4QdCIn5QXxN0gPanuBcXjD96UJM+qb0fHTeT/om/bFDi5y1X9tTYaA6RZslfr5+KdghmQPhcx3nBdtzAHscMHVdSXaui5TeFouXHmfZaxuSamKNQIWPaLmHIJRK7j6OvV2Kx6ol6fsrPO80JXZsY1sqq/gnRNCAKgc0dndW4W3YJ7pw9Qfsu0B/1Ux2609feWiocXTAa0Q/nqhn8fp3ShXd3GLDU7PeNJHX0WWoHoHK81l7m6keYRvkM0qv6IVcmfxt2EPdUUrxv71RlQwN8Itp0p3ekOLeQWljauxTpbD6lf/BS6K9HLI9SPljCHj8Mru+A==
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <BN6PR09MB142612CE7C3B5C561F0F8572F0640@BN6PR09MB1426.namprd09.prod.outlook.com>
x-exchange-antispam-report-test: UriScan:(65766998875637)(21748063052155);
x-exchange-antispam-report-cfa-test: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(6040375)(601004)(2401047)(5005006)(8121501046)(3002001)(10201501046)(6055026)(6041248)(20161123562025)(20161123555025)(20161123564025)(20161123560025)(6072148); SRVR:BN6PR09MB1426; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:; SRVR:BN6PR09MB1426;
x-forefront-prvs: 0182DBBB05
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10019020)(7916002)(39410400002)(39850400002)(39840400002)(39450400003)(377454003)(24454002)(189002)(199003)(25786008)(6436002)(3846002)(54906002)(102836003)(19609705001)(6506006)(790700001)(38730400001)(93886004)(77096006)(3280700002)(39060400001)(8936002)(55016002)(229853002)(74316002)(97736004)(86362001)(6116002)(99286003)(68736007)(81156014)(81166006)(110136003)(6916009)(2950100002)(3660700001)(105586002)(7736002)(7696004)(230783001)(4326007)(66066001)(122556002)(106116001)(106356001)(8676002)(2906002)(6306002)(33656002)(54356999)(76176999)(5660300001)(9686003)(50986999)(189998001)(2900100001)(92566002)(101416001)(54896002); DIR:OUT; SFP:1102; SCL:1; SRVR:BN6PR09MB1426; H:BN6PR09MB1427.namprd09.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; PTR:InfoNoRecords; MX:1; A:1; LANG:en;
received-spf: None (protection.outlook.com: nist.gov does not designate permitted sender hosts)
spamdiagnosticoutput: 1:99
spamdiagnosticmetadata: NSPM
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_BN6PR09MB14273F5C06C96020659D5733F0640BN6PR09MB1427namp_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginatorOrg: nist.gov
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 09 Jan 2017 15:23:55.6576 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 2ab5d82f-d8fa-4797-a93e-054655c61dec
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: BN6PR09MB1426
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipsec/f9gsgUuuezofoBU2kERT25lXJGk>
Cc: "ipsec@ietf.org" <ipsec@ietf.org>, "paul@nohats.ca" <paul@nohats.ca>
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: Mon, 09 Jan 2017 15:24:15 -0000

Kathleen,

Thanks. Happy new year!

Regards,
Dave

From: Kathleen Moriarty [mailto:kathleen.moriarty.ietf@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, January 09, 2017 9:43 AM
To: Waltermire, David A. (Fed) <david.waltermire@nist.gov>
Cc: paul@nohats.ca; ipsec@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [IPsec] AD review of draft-ietf-ipsecme-rfc4307bis

Hi Dave,

Yes, I can remove the telechat date and reset it when the WG os ready.  With that, it seems it would be fine to add time to the IETF last call (restart).

Thank you,
Kathleen

On Mon, Jan 9, 2017 at 9:31 AM, Waltermire, David A. (Fed) <david.waltermire@nist.gov<mailto:david.waltermire@nist.gov>> wrote:
Kathleen,

I am just getting back after taking a long holiday. Sorry I was AFK on this one.

We want to advance rfc7321bis to go through the remainder of IESG review with 4307bis as a pair. Unfortunately, I wasn’t able to get this done before leaving on holiday. I need to do a WGLC on rfc7321bis starting ASAP this week. Can you hold 4307bis for a bit to have the two run concurrently?

Thanks,
Dave

From: IPsec [mailto:ipsec-bounces@ietf.org<mailto:ipsec-bounces@ietf.org>] On Behalf Of Kathleen Moriarty
Sent: Friday, January 06, 2017 4:01 PM
To: paul@nohats.ca<mailto:paul@nohats.ca>
Cc: ipsec@ietf.org<mailto:ipsec@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [IPsec] AD review of draft-ietf-ipsecme-rfc4307bis



On Fri, Jan 6, 2017 at 3:56 PM, Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca<mailto:paul@nohats.ca>> wrote:
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 :)
I'm not sure we'll get more either.  Is 2/2 okay or is there any rush for this draft?

Thanks!


Paul



--

Best regards,
Kathleen



--

Best regards,
Kathleen