Re: [lamps] [EXTERNAL] Francesca Palombini's No Objection on draft-ietf-lamps-cmp-algorithms-14: (with COMMENT)

[Francesca Palombini <[e-mail]>]

Hi Mike,

Exactly what Roman said – this was added as a reminder for us to approve during today’s conference call, no action from the WG or the authors (and I was not questioning the validity of the reference, I believe that’s the right call both for the reference and it being normative).

Thanks,
Francesca

From: Roman Danyliw <[e-mail]>
Date: Thursday, 2 June 2022 at 02:05
To: Mike Ounsworth <Mike.Ounsworth=[e-mail]>, Francesca Palombini <[e-mail]>
Cc: [e-mail] <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>, The IESG <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] Francesca Palombini's No Objection on draft-ietf-lamps-cmp-algorithms-14: (with COMMENT)
Hi Mike!

Francesca will correct me if she intended something different.

RFC8018 is an informational status document being used normatively in a proposed standard (PS) status document (draft-ietf-lamps-cmp-algoritms).  What should have happened is that RFC8018 should have been called out in the IETF LC.  It wasn't.  Likewise, RFC8018 wasn't permanently added to the DOWNREF registry (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/downref/), the list of informational status documents that have been approved for use normatively in PS documents.

With IESG consensus, RFC8067 gives the IESG the means to approve this reference use (of RFC8018) without having to issue another IETF Last Call.  No action for you.  I'll handle this at the telechat tomorrow (June 2).

Roman

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Spasm <[e-mail]> On Behalf Of Mike Ounsworth
> Sent: Wednesday, June 1, 2022 6:18 PM
> To: Francesca Palombini <[e-mail]>; The IESG
> <[e-mail]>
> Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail];
> [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: [lamps] [EXTERNAL] Francesca Palombini's No Objection on draft-
> ietf-lamps-cmp-algorithms-14: (with COMMENT)
>
> Hi Francesca,
>
> Thank you for the review.
>
> This is my first time through the publication process an as author, so please
> forgive the dumb question. My understanding of the downref is that this
> document is Standards Track, but makes a normative ref to the Informational
> RFC 8018? Does this need further justification?
>
> We wanted to reference an existing definition of PBKDF2 OIDs and ASN.1
> structures rather than defining new ones. The definitions in 8018 seemed to be
> exactly what we needed.
>
> ---
> Mike Ounsworth
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Francesca Palombini via Datatracker <[e-mail]>
> Sent: June 1, 2022 5:00 PM
> To: The IESG <[e-mail]>
> Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail];
> [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Francesca Palombini's No Objection on draft-ietf-lamps-
> cmp-algorithms-14: (with COMMENT)
>
> WARNING: This email originated outside of Entrust.
> DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you trust the sender and know the
> content is safe.
>
> ___________________________________________________________________
> ___
> Francesca Palombini has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-lamps-cmp-algorithms-14: No Objection
>
> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email
> addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory
> paragraph, however.)
>
>
> Please refer to
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/stateme<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/stateme>
> nts/handling-ballot-positions/__;!!FJ-
> Y8qCqXTj2!YP9rRchKZEXSNbB0KuGLhCzYqt8r8v8s-
> YZ8fzGyHUMANcy2cx5PdWsJn9csh9gKCTzbFzgsccrBnixNdeY$
> for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
>
>
> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lamps-<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lamps->
> cmp-algorithms/__;!!FJ-Y8qCqXTj2!YP9rRchKZEXSNbB0KuGLhCzYqt8r8v8s-
> YZ8fzGyHUMANcy2cx5PdWsJn9csh9gKCTzbFzgsccrBH_4_69I$
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Thank you for the work on this document.
>
> Process note to the IESG: Lars already mentioned this, but reminder - we need
> to approve RFC 8018 as downref in conformance with RFC 8067 (and add it to
> the downref registry, since as Russ pointed it out, it has already been Last
> Called as downref for RFC 9045:
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spasm/mm<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spasm/mm>
> BskP8o1BjKCSYoOXAj1Ik0grA/__;!!FJ-
> Y8qCqXTj2!YP9rRchKZEXSNbB0KuGLhCzYqt8r8v8s-
> YZ8fzGyHUMANcy2cx5PdWsJn9csh9gKCTzbFzgsccrB_xmoy5k$  ) since it was
> not Last Called for this document.
>
> Francesca
>
>
>
> Any email and files/attachments transmitted with it are confidential and are
> intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are
> addressed. If this message has been sent to you in error, you must not copy,
> distribute or disclose of the information it contains. Please notify Entrust
> immediately and delete the message from your system.
> _______________________________________________
> Spasm mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spasm