Re: [karp] WG Last-Call Comments on "Database of Long-Lived Symmetric Cryptographic Keys"
Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com> Tue, 06 November 2012 00:09 UTC
Return-Path: <housley@vigilsec.com>
X-Original-To: karp@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: karp@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B211F11E80AE for <karp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 5 Nov 2012 16:09:31 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.595
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.595 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.004, 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 tglXl++DvOec for <karp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 5 Nov 2012 16:09:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: from odin.smetech.net (mail.smetech.net [208.254.26.82]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4891F11E80AD for <karp@ietf.org>; Mon, 5 Nov 2012 16:09:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (unknown [208.254.26.81]) by odin.smetech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8B57C9A4002; Mon, 5 Nov 2012 19:09:48 -0500 (EST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at smetech.net
Received: from odin.smetech.net ([208.254.26.82]) by localhost (ronin.smetech.net [208.254.26.81]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Yt8CfM26dU7r; Mon, 5 Nov 2012 19:09:26 -0500 (EST)
Received: from dhcp-5421.meeting.ietf.org (dhcp-5421.meeting.ietf.org [130.129.84.33]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by odin.smetech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id AF47A9A4001; Mon, 5 Nov 2012 19:09:47 -0500 (EST)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1085)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
From: Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com>
In-Reply-To: <8DEFCA93-10FD-41DB-851F-42C775937B5C@lindem.com>
Date: Mon, 05 Nov 2012 19:09:29 -0500
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <4E38F57D-BB87-47FC-B99D-FF0B836CD5F9@vigilsec.com>
References: <8DEFCA93-10FD-41DB-851F-42C775937B5C@lindem.com>
To: Acee Lindem <acee.lindem@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1085)
Cc: karp@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [karp] WG Last-Call Comments on "Database of Long-Lived Symmetric Cryptographic Keys"
X-BeenThere: karp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussion list for key management for routing and transport protocols <karp.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/karp>, <mailto:karp-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/karp>
List-Post: <mailto:karp@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:karp-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/karp>, <mailto:karp-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 06 Nov 2012 00:09:31 -0000
> SendNotBefore, SendNotAfter, RecvNotBefore and RcvNotAfter - There are already several implementations that use the term SendLifetimeStart, SendLifeTimeEnd, AcceptLifeTimeStart, and AcceptLifeTimeEnd in their keychain implementations - why can't you use these terms? Note that this is, at least, the second time I've raised this comment. I have not seen support for this change. I have no problem making these changes if there is consensus on this set of terms. Russ
- [karp] WG Last-Call Comments on "Database of Long… Acee Lindem
- Re: [karp] WG Last-Call Comments on "Database of … Acee Lindem
- Re: [karp] WG Last-Call Comments on "Database of … Russ Housley
- Re: [karp] WG Last-Call Comments on "Database of … John William Atwood
- Re: [karp] WG Last-Call Comments on "Database of … Acee Lindem