Re: [lamps] Preparing the shepherd write-up for rfc6844bis

Sean Turner <sean@sn3rd.com> Sun, 25 November 2018 18:32 UTC

Return-Path: <sean@sn3rd.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 7615F12F1AB for <spasm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 25 Nov 2018 10:32:58 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.001
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.001 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=sn3rd.com
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 fBuk1RDEk592 for <spasm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 25 Nov 2018 10:32:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-qt1-x834.google.com (mail-qt1-x834.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::834]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 75D321288EB for <spasm@ietf.org>; Sun, 25 Nov 2018 10:32:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-qt1-x834.google.com with SMTP id z16so15194641qtq.4 for <spasm@ietf.org>; Sun, 25 Nov 2018 10:32:56 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sn3rd.com; s=google; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=Kj4zRvaFUsCUwCmTgEoXzOn+Twmj+WV6kdNTS7eXCV4=; b=IYfyW7hXftjgw/JU+q+slxeB4hlHgRpkcU/zCa8dDpjJ5xJQeqRYAkxUyej2wsByRg 3MB9+IkBG+pw5YoS+J+fVaOffu0ladnXhnz0hXpJnNjour4iiyJ67+S1kA2kIfFVIGU/ WtAruyQGoUx8tsyz3TznWQj5cqu3jB52rHxvg=
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=Kj4zRvaFUsCUwCmTgEoXzOn+Twmj+WV6kdNTS7eXCV4=; b=S1ImBFOxZAX72Cecki5/3nNN8YPFqMi91q72jY4uGMMPkUGTRRnxJmUKs7rGvTAwUU GNqPSmGRsgKfnCLYY+waBbZitqzBdd+OAeJ+ZpWFHTgVQTa1y0f54rg823CaqwjS7gJq 4JezKnBNVgEeUeeatRIrh+IrOvzwiGvmyZSnnGOeLG1spvEvaEOsV7XTUvM4AXL+3ARr J4IPo1nDLWeTiZiMnF+MNj8e+bnv/xZBkEd3kuELgdaRrqJBVHV4HJuZKURUAAIDRsVj X6mlb+bCvpD81S3oWXpPnt+VN/cHE6NxDMp54ldM4HRTXzZNnYZD3m9yHT1a+yxzXlBZ w50A==
X-Gm-Message-State: AGRZ1gKOkr0DOf+6ClpQuZyM61rqU9ytNBClhDJrOIjCn4BIWKX+qmcK 4b57BpxfNAOJGdwmqmcZYFBffutAs+I=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AJdET5cla9GKR0kcNc4mbnR4Zis4KPFaecjwcpPMQqfCBKEyj0MCMmShyYegoM7hG3zb6FcG0UQtTA==
X-Received: by 2002:aed:314b:: with SMTP id 69mr23268108qtg.247.1543170775571; Sun, 25 Nov 2018 10:32:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [172.16.0.18] ([96.231.221.42]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id o190sm3245230qkd.53.2018.11.25.10.32.54 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Sun, 25 Nov 2018 10:32:54 -0800 (PST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.1 \(3445.101.1\))
From: Sean Turner <sean@sn3rd.com>
X-Priority: 1
In-Reply-To: <7FC03EEB-0D87-4454-805C-62DBCBA845C3@vigilsec.com>
Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2018 13:32:53 -0500
Cc: Rob Stradling <rob.stradling@comodo.com>, jsha@letsencrypt.org, Phillip Hallam-Baker <phill@hallambaker.com>, SPASM <spasm@ietf.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <BC4D1DE8-B4DD-4BC3-9E00-629709585DA7@sn3rd.com>
References: <7FC03EEB-0D87-4454-805C-62DBCBA845C3@vigilsec.com>
To: Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.101.1)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spasm/9OH8Yny6RQ_Fy8V1PW8t17TXZ5M>
Subject: Re: [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: Sun, 25 Nov 2018 18:32:59 -0000

Russ,

While probably not strictly part of the shepherd write-up it might be good to note that the expert(s) for the Certification Authority Restriction Properties remains “Unassigned”:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/pkix-parameters/pkix-parameters.xhtml#caa-properties

One minor nittty nit on the draft:

s9.1 (remove stray “>”): r/Reserved>/Reserved

spt

> On Oct 30, 2018, at 13:04, Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com> wrote:
> 
> 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? }}}
> 
> Russ
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Spasm mailing list
> Spasm@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spasm