IETF Logo Mail Archive

[lamps] Call for adoption for draft-dkg-lamps-samples

Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com> Wed, 14 April 2021 21:29 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 0C19F3A2096 for <spasm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 14 Apr 2021 14:29:16 -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 ErNYsXcJ6eeb for <spasm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 14 Apr 2021 14:29:14 -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 E31653A208D for <spasm@ietf.org>; Wed, 14 Apr 2021 14:29:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.smeinc.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3CCCE300B93 for <spasm@ietf.org>; Wed, 14 Apr 2021 17:29:11 -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 quU0lsCpLGfO for <spasm@ietf.org>; Wed, 14 Apr 2021 17:29:10 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from a860b60074bd.fios-router.home (pool-141-156-161-153.washdc.fios.verizon.net [141.156.161.153]) by mail.smeinc.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 5062D300AA6 for <spasm@ietf.org>; Wed, 14 Apr 2021 17:29:10 -0400 (EDT)
From: Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.17\))
Message-Id: <F1531D47-B2AC-43BC-8EE2-897F2D9A0974@vigilsec.com>
Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2021 17:29:11 -0400
To: LAMPS WG <spasm@ietf.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.17)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spasm/IoF4ZqmckFDTC1RCqZQ-FFXyitQ>
Subject: [lamps] Call for adoption for draft-dkg-lamps-samples
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: Wed, 14 Apr 2021 21:29:16 -0000

Based on the advice from Roman during IETF 110, I do not think that a recharter is needed to adopt a document that contains a big pile of samples to help implementers.  The existing document is in support of work that is in the current charter, and it can be expanded if the IESG approves the re-charter text that has already been sent to them.

Should the LAMPS WG adopt draft-dkg-lamps-samples as the starting point for this work?

Please voice your support or raise concerns by 29 April 2021.

For the LAMPS WG Chairs,
 Russ

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email