Re: [mif] Last Call: <draft-ietf-mif-mpvd-arch-09.txt> (Multiple Provisioning Domain Architecture) to Informational RFC

Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com> Mon, 09 February 2015 18:35 UTC

Return-Path: <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>
X-Original-To: mif@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mif@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4C0461A1BAA for <mif@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 9 Feb 2015 10:35:16 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.91
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.91 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
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 qHsg7UJ-QT5G for <mif@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 9 Feb 2015 10:35:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sjc1-mx02-inside.nominum.com (sjc1-mx02-inside.nominum.com [64.89.234.25]) (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 56F481A1B75 for <mif@ietf.org>; Mon, 9 Feb 2015 10:35:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: from archivist.nominum.com (archivist.nominum.com [64.89.228.108]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "*.nominum.com", Issuer "Go Daddy Secure Certificate Authority - G2" (verified OK)) by sjc1-mx02-inside.nominum.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4330BDA0293 for <mif@ietf.org>; Mon, 9 Feb 2015 18:35:14 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from webmail.nominum.com (cas-03.win.nominum.com [64.89.235.66]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "mail.nominum.com", Issuer "Go Daddy Secure Certificate Authority - G2" (verified OK)) by archivist.nominum.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 197FC53E080; Mon, 9 Feb 2015 10:35:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [10.0.20.107] (71.233.43.215) by CAS-03.WIN.NOMINUM.COM (64.89.235.66) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.224.2; Mon, 9 Feb 2015 10:35:14 -0800
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\))
From: Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>
In-Reply-To: <CACurXJgeCgLuAJOaxtO47Uh_osgk7WsP-1F-h0VvO5kL+xZxqA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 9 Feb 2015 13:35:10 -0500
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-ID: <BE5ADEB3-5B01-4D8A-AD36-80D5D12E372D@nominum.com>
References: <20150123153536.10431.23196.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <A48A040C-F8C3-4E97-AF97-CD80DD19C3CD@iki.fi> <ECA36B14-039B-4842-B492-632E8FC5F0C5@nominum.com> <853D079F-75B3-4AF6-857F-AE15C2AB32D2@iki.fi> <FBE72B61-28E1-456B-BF3C-1B6C9C4A7D38@nominum.com> <CACurXJgeCgLuAJOaxtO47Uh_osgk7WsP-1F-h0VvO5kL+xZxqA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Dmitry Anipko <dmitry.anipko@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6)
X-Originating-IP: [71.233.43.215]
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mif/IHTl59xPKdihO8QBEQSlSMaYIds>
Cc: Markus Stenberg <markus.stenberg@iki.fi>, "mif@ietf.org List" <mif@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [mif] Last Call: <draft-ietf-mif-mpvd-arch-09.txt> (Multiple Provisioning Domain Architecture) to Informational RFC
X-BeenThere: mif@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Multiple Interface Discussion List <mif.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/mif>, <mailto:mif-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mif/>
List-Post: <mailto:mif@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mif-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mif>, <mailto:mif-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 09 Feb 2015 18:35:16 -0000

On Feb 4, 2015, at 11:25 PM, Dmitry Anipko <dmitry.anipko@gmail.com> wrote:
> My reading is that there is a consensus to fix the name misspelling :-), but I could not quite read whether the PKI question got resolved. Markus, can you please comment whether the modification Ted worded would address your concern?

It looks like you got an answer from Markus.   This document is currently scheduled for the 2/19 telechat, so it would be great if we could get an update in the next day or so that incorporates the agreed-upon changes, or if you don't yet feel that you have what you need, we should figure out how to address that.   The document has to be finished and ready for IETF review with enough lead time that people can meaningfully comment on it and discuss it.