IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [sidr] Terry Manderson's Discuss on draft-ietf-sidr-publication-10: (with DISCUSS)

Terry Manderson <terry.manderson@icann.org> Wed, 01 February 2017 06:03 UTC

Return-Path: <terry.manderson@icann.org>
X-Original-To: sidr@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: sidr@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CDE7D12975C; Tue, 31 Jan 2017 22:03:08 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.399
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.399 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-3.199, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 Hpy7-ksaIb_3; Tue, 31 Jan 2017 22:03:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: from out.west.pexch112.icann.org (pfe112-ca-2.pexch112.icann.org [64.78.40.10]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 79D321293FE; Tue, 31 Jan 2017 22:03:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: from PMBX112-W1-CA-1.pexch112.icann.org (64.78.40.21) by PMBX112-W1-CA-1.pexch112.icann.org (64.78.40.21) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1178.4; Tue, 31 Jan 2017 22:03:05 -0800
Received: from PMBX112-W1-CA-1.pexch112.icann.org ([64.78.40.21]) by PMBX112-W1-CA-1.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG ([64.78.40.21]) with mapi id 15.00.1178.000; Tue, 31 Jan 2017 22:03:04 -0800
From: Terry Manderson <terry.manderson@icann.org>
To: Rob Austein <sra@hactrn.net>
Thread-Topic: Terry Manderson's Discuss on draft-ietf-sidr-publication-10: (with DISCUSS)
Thread-Index: AQHScVRH2KDA6djSb0i8Rnp4Z6wfEqFSlviAgAIeW4D//3PmAIAAw5CA
Date: Wed, 01 Feb 2017 06:03:04 +0000
Message-ID: <EA1B9794-D712-4454-9E5C-CC2843258BEA@icann.org>
References: <148472099055.32074.3466420839397217706.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <20170131042323.464A846665B4@minas-ithil.hactrn.net> <D95A412F-6DA3-4F98-99AA-7EABE837CB2A@icann.org> <20170201042306.42A1C466B729@minas-ithil.hactrn.net>
In-Reply-To: <20170201042306.42A1C466B729@minas-ithil.hactrn.net>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: yes
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/f.1e.0.170107
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [192.0.32.234]
Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg="sha1"; boundary="B_3568809783_430836394"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/sidr/IFz_771kFnsNNN9PQyI6Mzhj8fc>
Cc: Chris Morrow <morrowc@ops-netman.net>, "sidr-chairs@ietf.org" <sidr-chairs@ietf.org>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, "sidr@ietf.org" <sidr@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-sidr-publication@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-sidr-publication@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [sidr] Terry Manderson's Discuss on draft-ietf-sidr-publication-10: (with DISCUSS)
X-BeenThere: sidr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: Secure Interdomain Routing <sidr.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/sidr>, <mailto:sidr-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/sidr/>
List-Post: <mailto:sidr@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:sidr-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr>, <mailto:sidr-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 01 Feb 2017 06:03:09 -0000

No, Thank you!

I will clear my DISCUSS when -11 is posted.

Cheers
Terry

On 1/02/2017, 2:23 PM, "iesg on behalf of Rob Austein" <iesg-bounces@ietf.org on behalf of sra@hactrn.net> wrote:

    At Wed, 1 Feb 2017 02:44:36 +0000, Terry Manderson wrote:
    ...
    > The layering of XML, within CMS, within HTTP is certainly tedious.
    
    Agreed, but...copied from RFC 6492, trying not to reinvent wheels.
    
    > During interop and development did any situations arise where a
    > failure at one level caused misinterpretation at another or left
    > something in an unclear state?
    
    Not that I recall.  Fairly high degree of code reuse from RFC 6492.
    
    ...
    >     Now, given all that, I could see an argument for dropping this
    >     discussion out of sidr-publication on the grounds that it will be
    >     totally out of place if RRDP takes over.  Would that be satisfactory?
    ...
    > Yes. Please cut the text from this Document.
    
    (Will be) gone in -11.
    
    Thanks!

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email