IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [lamps] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-lamps-rfc7030est-clarify-02

Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com> Fri, 01 May 2020 15:09 UTC

Return-Path: <housley@vigilsec.com>
X-Original-To: spasm@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: spasm@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 946753A13CF for <spasm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 1 May 2020 08:09:06 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.898
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.898 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=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 uMuLPxFK7P7o for <spasm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 1 May 2020 08:09:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.smeinc.net (mail.smeinc.net [209.135.209.11]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6B6603A13AC for <spasm@ietf.org>; Fri, 1 May 2020 08:09:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.smeinc.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id E4246300B5D for <spasm@ietf.org>; Fri, 1 May 2020 11:09:01 -0400 (EDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at mail.smeinc.net
Received: from mail.smeinc.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mail.smeinc.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10026) with ESMTP id PW0zf3x_bgnf for <spasm@ietf.org>; Fri, 1 May 2020 11:09:01 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from a860b60074bd.fios-router.home (pool-72-66-113-56.washdc.fios.verizon.net [72.66.113.56]) by mail.smeinc.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id E96CE3004AF; Fri, 1 May 2020 11:09:00 -0400 (EDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.14\))
From: Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com>
In-Reply-To: <11381.1588286249@localhost>
Date: Fri, 01 May 2020 11:09:02 -0400
Cc: LAMPS WG <spasm@ietf.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <A134C6AA-B24E-410F-953C-DC2C7CF11EA9@vigilsec.com>
References: <63B58892-60CB-42C9-8168-E5476E2F40CB@vigilsec.com> <4E7C3690-6F3F-45C1-817E-F9D4DB1B184E@vigilsec.com> <11381.1588286249@localhost>
To: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.14)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spasm/11jtv-c8Z0TJQjmAAdULk5rIVhg>
Subject: Re: [lamps] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-lamps-rfc7030est-clarify-02
X-BeenThere: spasm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "This is a venue for discussion of doing Some Pkix And SMime \(spasm\) work." <spasm.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/spasm>, <mailto:spasm-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/spasm/>
List-Post: <mailto:spasm@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:spasm-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spasm>, <mailto:spasm-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 01 May 2020 15:09:07 -0000

>> (2) Several errata are listed in the Introduction:
> 
>> This document deals with errata numbers [errata4384], [errata5107],
>> [errata5108], and [errata5904].
> 
> I asked that question... I thought that I heard that they should be normative.

I can imagine a sentence that would make a normative reference, but this one does not seem that way to me.

Do others have an opinion about this question?

Russ

v2.46.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status