Re: [Isms] Last Call: rfc5953 (Transport Layer Security (TLS) Transport Model for the Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP)) to Draft Standard

SM <sm@resistor.net> Sat, 30 April 2011 23:26 UTC

Return-Path: <sm@resistor.net>
X-Original-To: isms@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: isms@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BCCAEE06E7; Sat, 30 Apr 2011 16:26:52 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id v0HIJHBkm7io; Sat, 30 Apr 2011 16:26:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 169A8E0593; Sat, 30 Apr 2011 16:26:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from subman.resistor.net (IDENT:sm@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.4/8.14.5.Beta0) with ESMTP id p3UNQbu7023592; Sat, 30 Apr 2011 16:26:41 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=opendkim.org; s=mail2010; t=1304206003; bh=VqNu3n3vUUefMc2nFhaviAxojX6gkyf+nz1NkLqk3VU=; h=Message-Id:X-Mailer:Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To: References:Mime-Version:Content-Type; b=WiqAx0xQyiJ8wJG1/TZKHTdWuQENOtLqZA2zM5d9kCvm/srgEO+/fUM8+aZNYhZd4 xoxInkAcHnkrE9v2VZMpNK1dxD4y4gF87LeQceI6XaXzYg+9t+aRB7fHYkXJAZpQOl rCM78O0zRkY3J3eu7GyWAQ2Litw1TbWirQ4Gafd8=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=resistor.net; s=mail; t=1304206003; bh=VqNu3n3vUUefMc2nFhaviAxojX6gkyf+nz1NkLqk3VU=; h=Message-Id:X-Mailer:Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To: References:Mime-Version:Content-Type; b=cXX11dQ8WzuO/ImZup+qehevYfgdHQSUHw5VqWuf9bgunERMar7kLSq+XBzhQOuhr KrSfPVZzHCnQO5pyz9Y6d761SkleBA5R0ZWU/Eh3fvQbQF8nw4c1VLTYeZI6OAbmBW D3Z56tszX0US138JTRs0gElzVro3d1k3eDajhG4k=
Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20110430150731.029f3fd8@resistor.net>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6
Date: Sat, 30 Apr 2011 15:41:15 -0700
To: ietf@ietf.org
From: SM <sm@resistor.net>
In-Reply-To: <20110419211456.203DAE084A@ietfc.amsl.com>
References: <20110419211456.203DAE084A@ietfc.amsl.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 02 May 2011 11:40:30 -0700
Cc: isms@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Isms] Last Call: rfc5953 (Transport Layer Security (TLS) Transport Model for the Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP)) to Draft Standard
X-BeenThere: isms@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Mailing list for the ISMS working group <isms.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/isms>, <mailto:isms-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/isms>
List-Post: <mailto:isms@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:isms-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/isms>, <mailto:isms-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 30 Apr 2011 23:26:52 -0000

At 14:14 19-04-2011, The IESG wrote:
>The IESG has received a request from the isms WG (isms) to consider the
>following document:
>
>- 'Transport Layer Security (TLS) Transport Model for the Simple Network
>    Management Protocol (SNMP) '
>   RFC 5953 as a Draft Standard
>
>The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
>final comments on this action.  Please send substantive comments to the
>ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2011-05-03. Exceptionally,
>comments may be sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please
>retain the beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.
>
>This specification contains eight normative references to standards
>track documents of lower maturity: RFCs 1033, 3490, 3584, 4347, 4366,
>5246, 5280, and 5952.

In Section 7:

   "A hostname is always in US-ASCII (as per [RFC1033]);
    internationalized hostnames are encoded in US-ASCII as domain
    names after transformation via the ToASCII operation specified
    in [RFC3490]."

As a quick comment, RFC 1033 is a down-ref.  A better reference is 
RFC 1123.  As it is part of STD 3, a down-ref is no longer 
needed.  The reference to RFC 3490 could be updated to RFC 
5890.  That also avoids a down-ref in a Draft Standard to a document 
that has an Obsolete status.

Regards,
-sm