[lamps] Preparing the shepherd write-up for rfc6844bis

Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com> Tue, 30 October 2018 17:04 UTC

Return-Path: <housley@vigilsec.com>
X-Original-To: spasm@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: spasm@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 61922130E0F for <spasm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 30 Oct 2018 10:04:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id T_Kxz-kw5T5S for <spasm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 30 Oct 2018 10:04:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.smeinc.net (mail.smeinc.net []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 40652130DFC for <spasm@ietf.org>; Tue, 30 Oct 2018 10:04:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by mail.smeinc.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id E2AE4300AB1 for <spasm@ietf.org>; Tue, 30 Oct 2018 13:04:31 -0400 (EDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at mail.smeinc.net
Received: from mail.smeinc.net ([]) by localhost (mail.smeinc.net []) (amavisd-new, port 10026) with ESMTP id ZfQ760KEHwfH for <spasm@ietf.org>; Tue, 30 Oct 2018 13:04:30 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from a860b60074bd.fios-router.home (pool-71-178-45-35.washdc.fios.verizon.net []) by mail.smeinc.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id DCA00300A46; Tue, 30 Oct 2018 13:04:29 -0400 (EDT)
From: Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Priority: 1
Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2018 13:04:30 -0400
Message-Id: <7FC03EEB-0D87-4454-805C-62DBCBA845C3@vigilsec.com>
Cc: SPASM <spasm@ietf.org>
To: Rob Stradling <rob.stradling@comodo.com>, jsha@letsencrypt.org, Phillip Hallam-Baker <phill@hallambaker.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.5 \(3445.9.1\))
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.9.1)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spasm/2386V4UNic2qz8EtmonWNFA3dEI>
Subject: [lamps] Preparing the shepherd write-up for rfc6844bis
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: Tue, 30 Oct 2018 17:04:49 -0000

IDnits reports the following problems:

idnits 2.16.0 

  Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist :

  == The 'Obsoletes: ' line in the draft header should list only the
     _numbers_ of the RFCs which will be obsoleted by this document (if
     approved); it should not include the word 'RFC' in the list.

{{{ Easy to fix, and I would not say anything if this was the only issue. }}}

  -- The draft header indicates that this document obsoletes RFC6844, but the
     abstract doesn't seem to mention this, which it should.

{{{ Please add a sentence to the Abstract. }}}

  Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard

     (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references
     to lower-maturity documents in RFCs)

  == Missing Reference: 'STD13' is mentioned on line 194, but not defined

{{{ Perhaps you meant to reference RFC 1035 here. }}}

  ** Downref: Normative reference to an Informational RFC: RFC 3647

{{{ Can this be moved to an Informational reference? }}}

  ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 5070 (Obsoleted by RFC 7970)

{{{ Is there a reason to not reference RFC 7970? }}}

  ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 5226 (Obsoleted by RFC 8126)

{{{ Is there a reason to not reference RFC 8126? }}}