IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Spasm] BoF in Berlin or what?

"Jim Schaad" <ietf@augustcellars.com> Fri, 17 June 2016 22:48 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf@augustcellars.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 E9C8A12DC1A for <spasm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 17 Jun 2016 15:48:09 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.6
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] 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 Z7JdEDrkvz7l for <spasm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 17 Jun 2016 15:48:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp1.pacifier.net (smtp1.pacifier.net [64.255.237.171]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AE08112DBEB for <spasm@ietf.org>; Fri, 17 Jun 2016 15:48:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from hebrews (augustcellars.com [50.45.239.150]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: schaad@nwlink.com) by smtp1.pacifier.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 39B2A2C9FD; Fri, 17 Jun 2016 15:48:08 -0700 (PDT)
From: Jim Schaad <ietf@augustcellars.com>
To: 'Russ Housley' <housley@vigilsec.com>, spasm@ietf.org
References: <57519BBB.8050604@cs.tcd.ie> <7255B25B-9278-461C-9480-D4326F63D37B@vigilsec.com> <CAAFsWK2xiZeJC-hzWBsCLR-Mqyqs5xUhLzCfWUxUyYuDdiQ8Qg@mail.gmail.com> <438E0183-E149-4580-B6C2-8D120E070E4C@vigilsec.com>
In-Reply-To: <438E0183-E149-4580-B6C2-8D120E070E4C@vigilsec.com>
Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2016 15:48:07 -0700
Message-ID: <02c101d1c8ea$515b85b0$f4129110$@augustcellars.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 16.0
Thread-Index: AQHW8767gWSD88kXh4etiVhlBOiuaAHTypiSAkyacpkA+howEJ+7GP2Q
Content-Language: en-us
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spasm/7PhCZJTOTpDekKOVOactOySGCvQ>
Subject: Re: [Spasm] BoF in Berlin or what?
X-BeenThere: spasm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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, 17 Jun 2016 22:48:10 -0000

Given the constraints of a one-hour meeting, that looks reasonable.

Jim


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Spasm [mailto:spasm-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Russ Housley
> Sent: Friday, June 17, 2016 12:16 PM
> To: spasm@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [Spasm] BoF in Berlin or what?
> 
> Seing that SPASM has a one hour slot on the preliminary schedule and that
> document authors have agreed to do status and open issue presentations, I
> propose the following agenda.
> 
> 	SPASM WG Agenda
> 
> 	0)  Minutes, Jabber Scribe, Bluesheets
> 	1)  Agenda Bash
> 	2)  Status and open issues for draft-melnikov-spasm-eai-addresses
> 	3)  Status and open issues for draft-schaad-rfc5751-bis
> 	4)  WG document adoption
> 	5)  Wrap Up
> 
> The 4th item will be dropped if the IESG has not chartered the SPASM WG in
> time.
> 
> Thoughts?
> 
> Russ
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Spasm mailing list
> Spasm@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spasm

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email