draft-ietf-pkix-sonof3039 is Approved

Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com> Mon, 23 February 2004 19:05 UTC

Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20040223123523.04da8ec8@mail.verizon.net>
Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2004 12:35:30 -0500
To: Denis.Pinkas@bull.net
From: Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com>
Subject: draft-ietf-pkix-sonof3039 is Approved
Cc: smb@research.att.com, harald@alvestrand.no, ietf-pkix@imc.org
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Sender: owner-ietf-pkix@mail.imc.org
Precedence: bulk

Denis:

After WG Last Call was closed, you submitted 38 comments.  These comments 
were not ignored, they were considered during IETF Last Call.  Stefan 
Santesson posted a detailed response of each of your comments on January 
30th.  This message was sent to PKIX mail list.

Stefan met with you in Barcelona during the ETSI meeting and explained the 
changes that were made.  Stefan reported that you seemed happy, except you 
expressed a wish to add something to the security considerations 
section.  Stefan asked for you to contribute text, but it never came, well 
at least not before today.

Steve Kent sent the attached note confirming that the PKIX WG had reached 
consensus.  Steve confirms that all of you comments were considered, 
although not all of them were accepted.

The revised document was posted as draft-ietf-pkix-sonof3039-05, and that 
document was reviewed by the IESG for the telechat last Thursday.  The IESG 
approved the document, with one point needing to be cleared up.  That point 
was cleared up last Saturday.

The secretariat should be sending an approval announcement today.

If you were not happy with the way that your comments were handled, you 
should have spoken up long before today.

Russ


>Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2004 17:46:43 -0500
>To: Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com>
>From: Stephen Kent <kent@bbn.com>
>Subject: RE: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-pkix-sonof3039-03.txt
>Cc: "Stefan Santesson" <stefans@microsoft.com>, "Tim Polk" <wpolk@nist.gov>,
>    "Magnus Nystrom" <magnus@RSASECURITY.COM>, Stephen  Kent <kent@bbn.com>
>
>Russ,
>
>>
>>>Would this be OK or do I need to get consensus with Denis an all 38
>>>items on the list :-)
>>
>>We need Tim and Steve to be involved in this process.  They are the ones 
>>that need to determine 'rough consensus' for this document.  I need to be 
>>satisfied that Last Call comments have been considered and resolved 
>>without breaking the rough consensus.  To this end, I want to see a 
>>response to each comment posted to the PKIX list. This will allow others 
>>to object if the change breaks the consensus.
>
>I am satisfied that the WG, based on the mail on the list, is satisfied 
>with the version of 3039bis that we now have.  Denis's issues have been 
>dealt with, or at least considered, and we can proceed.
>
>Steve

Re: draft-ietf-pkix-sonof3039 is Approved Denis Pinkas
Re: draft-ietf-pkix-sonof3039 is Approved Russ Housley
draft-ietf-pkix-sonof3039 is Approved Russ Housley
Re: draft-ietf-pkix-sonof3039 is Approved Stephen Kent
Re: draft-ietf-pkix-sonof3039 is Approved Russ Housley
RE: draft-ietf-pkix-sonof3039 is Approved Stefan Santesson