IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [rsab] draft-rswg-rfc7990-updates-08

Pete Resnick <resnick@episteme.net> Tue, 16 April 2024 21:00 UTC

Return-Path: <resnick@episteme.net>
X-Original-To: rsab@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rsab@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E8D93C14CF12 for <rsab@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 16 Apr 2024 14:00:21 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.095
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.095 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=episteme.net
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 0_tIt_AqP0uy for <rsab@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 16 Apr 2024 14:00:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.episteme.net (episteme.net [216.169.5.102]) (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 09BA9C14F5F1 for <rsab@rfc-editor.org>; Tue, 16 Apr 2024 14:00:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [172.16.1.32] (unknown [172.16.1.32]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.episteme.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4VJxJD4WdRzSpx8; Tue, 16 Apr 2024 16:00:12 -0500 (CDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=episteme.net; s=mail; t=1713301213; bh=xnoJ1phXTxLN0JQT+LaDXW0s6iXCCHXDELEdmzTUWLE=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References; b=Cq2gP7UVct1YtGy2hL9a9IMZFvozUYfL6U0Ty6HoFxkbVxMWIC+oTWqcP2qTyXfb+ 7eWNyHux2Zr+pwbacJA4KGwAF+V5/bjsuedq0Gp0rRcqUxUv3V42cfH1MAoCTXLTSc 7MyFcmMObkFgPAuX0eX93TFjDlWGKGqW4dZOeSYY=
From: Pete Resnick <resnick@episteme.net>
To: "Mirja Kuehlewind (IETF)" <ietf@kuehlewind.net>
Cc: Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com>, rsab@rfc-editor.org
Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2024 16:00:08 -0500
Message-ID: <AFEC940E-16C4-47C1-B33B-8E2E82A175B9@episteme.net>
In-Reply-To: <B6A304F7-2B0B-430C-AA2F-9F211C7D4F02@kuehlewind.net>
References: <66258AE8-FEF3-4094-B21C-6CE53D0056E2@icann.org> <A3F4A2F3-8578-4BAA-871E-55B36C16C042@episteme.net> <3812BBD4-F934-449F-B861-C06D9466D8F1@vigilsec.com> <B6A304F7-2B0B-430C-AA2F-9F211C7D4F02@kuehlewind.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=_MailMate_7E248119-B12C-43DA-882C-38DFE6F28978_="
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Synology-Spam-Status: score=-0.1, required 6, ARC_NA 0, FROM_HAS_DN 0, RCPT_COUNT_THREE 0, TO_DN_SOME 0, TO_MATCH_ENVRCPT_ALL 0, MIME_GOOD -0.1, __THREADED 0, HTML_MISSING_CTYPE 0, HTML_MESSAGE 0.001, RCVD_COUNT_ZERO 0, FROM_EQ_ENVFROM 0, MIME_TRACE 0, __NOT_SPOOFED 0, MID_RHS_MATCH_FROM 0, __HDRS_LCASE_KNOWN 0, NO_RECEIVED -0.001
X-Synology-Spam-Flag: no
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rsab/Y6rD0HiLeM5Yo584nwifmsg9EpE>
Subject: Re: [rsab] draft-rswg-rfc7990-updates-08
X-BeenThere: rsab@rfc-editor.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: "RFC Series Approval Board \(RSAB\)" <rsab.rfc-editor.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://mailman.rfc-editor.org/mailman/options/rsab>, <mailto:rsab-request@rfc-editor.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/rsab/>
List-Post: <mailto:rsab@rfc-editor.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rsab-request@rfc-editor.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://mailman.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rsab>, <mailto:rsab-request@rfc-editor.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2024 21:00:22 -0000

Hi Mirja,

We can certainly just toss it over the wall if that's what you all 
decide. We just wanted to make sure that we follow all of the required 
steps on our end and not have to iterate. If you think we're good to go, 
we're happy to simply hand it off.

pr

On 16 Apr 2024, at 15:44, Mirja Kuehlewind (IETF) wrote:

> Hi Russ,
>
> Your list below is roughly matches what we discussed on the RSAb list 
> but I think the discussion is not fully concluded yet. However, I 
> don’t think this internal processing of the RSAB is actually 
> relevant for you. All you need to do is to send a note to the RSAB 
> list that the document is really for RSAB approval and wait till you 
> hear back with further instructions (e.g. updating the doc based on 
> community feedback) or the approval.
>
> Mirja
>
>
>
>> On 16. Apr 2024, at 20:26, Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com> wrote:
>>
>> The RSWG has reached consensus on draft-rswg-rfc7990-updates-08.  
>> This is the first document that the RSWG will be sending to the RSAB, 
>> so Pete and I would like to understand the process.
>>
>> We believe that the process starts with an email to this mail list.  
>> This is step zero.
>>
>> Then ...
>>
>> 1. The secretariat assigns a shepherd.
>>
>> 2. The shepherd makes an initial review.
>>
>> 3. The secretariat sends a call for community review for two weeks 
>> (or longer if requested by the shepherd).
>>
>> 4.  The shepherd will review comments, working with the RSWG and 
>> authors to address them.
>>
>> 5. RSAB evaluation, with comments or CONCERN being sent to the RWSG 
>> list.  Again, the shepherd will review comments or CONCERN, working 
>> with the RSWG and authors to address them.
>>
>> 6. Shepherd final review to determine whether approval has been 
>> achieved.
>>
>> 7. If approved, the secretariat inform the RPC, RSWG, and possibly 
>> others.
>>
>> Please let us know if this summary matches your plan for the first 
>> document.
>>
>> Russ
>>
>> -- 
>> RSAB mailing list
>> RSAB@rfc-editor.org
>> https://mailman.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rsab
>>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email