IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [ipwave] Should the IPWAVE WG adopt draft-jeong-ipwave-problem-statement?

Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com> Fri, 23 June 2017 16:07 UTC

Return-Path: <housley@vigilsec.com>
X-Original-To: its@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: its@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D9261126CB6 for <its@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 23 Jun 2017 09:07:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 GFEiixNnJFSZ for <its@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 23 Jun 2017 09:07:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.smeinc.net (mail.smeinc.net [209.135.209.11]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F1F3C120726 for <its@ietf.org>; Fri, 23 Jun 2017 09:07:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.smeinc.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 50FE3300438 for <its@ietf.org>; Fri, 23 Jun 2017 12:07:40 -0400 (EDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at mail.smeinc.net
Received: from mail.smeinc.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mail.smeinc.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10026) with ESMTP id guvYHWoFKQAh for <its@ietf.org>; Fri, 23 Jun 2017 12:07:39 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from a860b60074bd.home (pool-108-45-101-150.washdc.fios.verizon.net [108.45.101.150]) by mail.smeinc.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 38D07300266 for <its@ietf.org>; Fri, 23 Jun 2017 12:07:39 -0400 (EDT)
From: Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.3 \(3273\))
Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2017 12:07:38 -0400
References: <9DDB779A-68DC-4598-BDC7-8A58D360B54E@vigilsec.com> <1497972661.3352.63.camel@it.uc3m.es>
To: its <its@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <1497972661.3352.63.camel@it.uc3m.es>
Message-Id: <1524E894-6915-46D3-BB46-0BCBBB786873@vigilsec.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3273)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/its/LQIACR3Ds3UVD1JLebdLxVneqzs>
Subject: Re: [ipwave] Should the IPWAVE WG adopt draft-jeong-ipwave-problem-statement?
X-BeenThere: its@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: IPWAVE - IP Wireless Access in Vehicular Environments WG at IETF <its.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/its>, <mailto:its-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/its/>
List-Post: <mailto:its@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:its-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/its>, <mailto:its-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2017 16:07:43 -0000

We have good support for adoption of this Internet-Draft.

The current I-D says:

  This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the
  provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

So, I ask that the authors ensure that any needed IPR statements are
posted prior to the posting of a draft-ietf-ipwave-problem-statement-00.

Russ



On Thu, 2017-06-08 at 15:03 -0400, Russ Housley wrote:
> The IPWAVE WG charter calls for the group to publish an Informational
> document:
> 
>   The group will also work on informational document
>   that describes the problem statement and the associated security
>   and privacy considerations.
> 
> Should the IPWAVE WG adopt draft-jeong-ipwave-problem-statement
> as the starting point for this deliverable?
> 
> See https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-jeong-ipwave-problem-statement/
> 
> Russ

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email