Re: [secdir] secdir review of draft-ietf-simple-msrp-sessmatch

Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com> Thu, 14 October 2010 17:44 UTC

Return-Path: <ted.ietf@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: secdir@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: secdir@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5C71E3A63EB; Thu, 14 Oct 2010 10:44:53 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.171
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.171 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.428, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id MNACpuVrDnvA; Thu, 14 Oct 2010 10:44:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-yw0-f44.google.com (mail-yw0-f44.google.com [209.85.213.44]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 123BB3A69B5; Thu, 14 Oct 2010 10:44:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by ywa6 with SMTP id 6so3043657ywa.31 for <multiple recipients>; Thu, 14 Oct 2010 10:46:11 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:received:in-reply-to :references:date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=q5lViDNEvlCGJXYz0CPEKzGWLfRBNcPnLYk3SsAEri0=; b=uNBnDSyUsWWFbjtgSFJzMsOWWVyl0b3TWJcY0QX8uUrDI81uY06q/zc9oLGPIo+sf4 S1Nef1tNrOLKWDJs5AyHTgJNasEY9bdx9MvXOMnu507pseG163bZzwIt1aFBvWZyC3cy 8XEWcQJt0TvwyPYiQOWcgb+Jc5DqxHuaYqdb8=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=ImgOw24d7HJYA9tE954g9Qj6WAG4pQ8+hLUF5fX6qGR9X+mdYSDL71cP0BNZ7hjdVH warwWMHLDHBGlGvjiDmp7Ipdk4TvY+a2d/vPvDpnxQwvMUIhZe01WcofK+4GxYkAQ0Jb WC8IXgvHp8VUawKO3vNvg9zyUJk6G77i3Pzqw=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.42.214.10 with SMTP id gy10mr6038945icb.370.1287078371085; Thu, 14 Oct 2010 10:46:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.231.207.15 with HTTP; Thu, 14 Oct 2010 10:46:10 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <B52D82C8-007D-45D1-B38E-FD4AB43EBB6A@estacado.net>
References: <7F2072F1E0DE894DA4B517B93C6A0585015BCA1D@ESESSCMS0356.eemea.ericsson.se> <4CAAD4B0.2080807@gmail.com> <AANLkTik5Pp+exyx4KAA5F7Fzg1_j9BNeZwxanG2=Vy=j@mail.gmail.com> <B52D82C8-007D-45D1-B38E-FD4AB43EBB6A@estacado.net>
Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2010 10:46:10 -0700
Message-ID: <AANLkTi=OOCHM_b6h_qASP1K8zB6Rc6fM-C+abDfqdrTY@mail.gmail.com>
From: Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com>
To: Ben Campbell <ben@estacado.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: Cullen Jennings <fluffy@cisco.com>, The IETF <ietf@ietf.org>, "secdir@ietf.org" <secdir@ietf.org>, Gonzalo Camarillo <gcamaril@gmail.com>, "draft-ietf-simple-msrp-sessmatch@tools.ietf.org" <draft-ietf-simple-msrp-sessmatch@tools.ietf.org>, "iesg@ietf.org" <iesg@ietf.org>, Christer Holmberg <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com>
Subject: Re: [secdir] secdir review of draft-ietf-simple-msrp-sessmatch
X-BeenThere: secdir@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Security Area Directorate <secdir.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/secdir>, <mailto:secdir-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/secdir>
List-Post: <mailto:secdir@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:secdir-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/secdir>, <mailto:secdir-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2010 17:44:53 -0000

Hi Ben,

On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 10:40 AM, Ben Campbell <ben@estacado.net> wrote:
> On Oct 14, 2010, at 12:19 PM, Ted Hardie wrote:
>
>> On the general clarity, I also have to say that I believe that the document
>> tipped over the "diff" line somewhere.  That is, as a set of edits it is now
>> sufficiently complex that it would almost certainly be better to apply
>> the edits and re-spin the whole document rather than provide a set of
>> textual diffs in the current format.  If the ADs and WG chairs feel that there
>> is no energy to tackle such a major editorial change, however, I certainly
>> understand.  It is possible to build up the correct state with the two
>> documents;
>> it is just more difficult.
>
> Hi Ted,
>
> Do I understand correctly that you mean a respin of RFC 4975?
>
> Thanks!

Yes, I do.  But I understand if that is not practical at this point in time.

regards,

Ted

>
> Ben.