IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [radext] Consensus call for changing intended RFC status of draft-ietf-radext-tls-psk

Alan DeKok <aland@deployingradius.com> Wed, 31 January 2024 13:40 UTC

Return-Path: <aland@deployingradius.com>
X-Original-To: radext@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: radext@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0AC3CC14F6A9; Wed, 31 Jan 2024 05:40:19 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.905
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.905 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id E-K6L8r51S98; Wed, 31 Jan 2024 05:40:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.networkradius.com (mail.networkradius.com [62.210.147.122]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0B1A9C14F61B; Wed, 31 Jan 2024 05:40:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtpclient.apple (135-23-95-173.cpe.pppoe.ca [135.23.95.173]) by mail.networkradius.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 5F3E710D; Wed, 31 Jan 2024 13:40:12 +0000 (UTC)
Authentication-Results: NetworkRADIUS; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=deployingradius.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 16.0 \(3696.120.41.1.1\))
From: Alan DeKok <aland@deployingradius.com>
In-Reply-To: <003c01da4f63$0109b160$031d1420$@smyslov.net>
Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2024 08:40:10 -0500
Cc: radext@ietf.org, radext-chairs@ietf.org
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <7B5FC65F-A1A7-419A-AF83-A9B2592BAA4F@deployingradius.com>
References: <003c01da4f63$0109b160$031d1420$@smyslov.net>
To: Valery Smyslov <valery@smyslov.net>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3696.120.41.1.1)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/radext/iKKgoghG-dpufYrMZQdgr8Sx9cg>
Subject: Re: [radext] Consensus call for changing intended RFC status of draft-ietf-radext-tls-psk
X-BeenThere: radext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: RADIUS EXTensions working group discussion list <radext.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/radext>, <mailto:radext-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/radext/>
List-Post: <mailto:radext@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:radext-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/radext>, <mailto:radext-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2024 13:40:19 -0000

  I am in favour of changing the document status.

> On Jan 25, 2024, at 2:49 AM, Valery Smyslov <valery@smyslov.net> wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> the current intended RFC status of draft-ietf-radext-tls-psk is
> Informational.
> As it was recently discussed in the ML [1], there seems to be an interest
> in changing the intended RFC status for this draft to BCP.
> 
> This message starts a one week consensus call for this change.
> Please, clearly indicate whether you support this change or not
> and in the latter case please indicate whether you think the status
> should be left as Informational or be changed to something different than
> BCP.
> 
> Regards,
> Margaret & Valery.
> 
> [1]
> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/radext/l_IhlekaNurr8dqmX8JW9FrTXXU/
> 
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email