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

Phillip Hallam-Baker <phill@hallambaker.com> Mon, 26 November 2018 19:10 UTC

Return-Path: <hallam@gmail.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 5E71F130F4A for <spasm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 26 Nov 2018 11:10:00 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.647
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.647 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no 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 xq07VzK2j-IE for <spasm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 26 Nov 2018 11:09:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ot1-f53.google.com (mail-ot1-f53.google.com [209.85.210.53]) (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 3A21A130F66 for <spasm@ietf.org>; Mon, 26 Nov 2018 11:09:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-ot1-f53.google.com with SMTP id t5so17748707otk.1 for <spasm@ietf.org>; Mon, 26 Nov 2018 11:09:58 -0800 (PST)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=q2m9+qAPjzbAJjeNz/Jc8+NKSlYWzxeOayoEA77dqqQ=; b=lutgJB+ZKSPKEn2gcOEOa+9tIzRWFiKAZbUVzRxM0dqFMKjQXi+60jwqxynHWw2R/+ kvxVQ7mDuZh/A5Hn4mMLPZmCiba8ZsVrWu0ftCH5Dt1Y4I/WKE20BLbtmgC+qAJQYxw6 ZH/kNeeaNfBvOC8cfrwa0tsrTYBpttLFrWaDl8RvKlqJEvE4wLGU4aPJYXEaspuU0Te6 cQmlUZ1jrJDe7uruJNdImCMsDpxYVdmACwfVaup/WSbpu30o2VEcfIRp5cofjLO2rOko 6CRPYOHbSUqse3wmGihuCr6YqkXf92JgOyFU/hWo2eNh07l1N0epFu4ydvhSuvVWYCr6 B2/Q==
X-Gm-Message-State: AA+aEWarqCU1RLE4r2d4CM0OwQNcATpvxPZA4d+yvrIy9998/bvBIU2j rN+IcFbxlot7RCVjbBn3zBp+jC1QWCbIEKo25LQ=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AFSGD/VmqCBEU31FxkI3VyGrOd/PsyJBw+4Asanr76LNlYJcs4cPdZ4VOrTGCrd7xJQhoiRfDtBYtXNW97CobNw15ZQ=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6830:134a:: with SMTP id r10mr15555290otq.195.1543259397166; Mon, 26 Nov 2018 11:09:57 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <7FC03EEB-0D87-4454-805C-62DBCBA845C3@vigilsec.com> <BC4D1DE8-B4DD-4BC3-9E00-629709585DA7@sn3rd.com> <B5DAE5BB-6E48-40A7-B0BC-8CF822044831@vigilsec.com>
In-Reply-To: <B5DAE5BB-6E48-40A7-B0BC-8CF822044831@vigilsec.com>
From: Phillip Hallam-Baker <phill@hallambaker.com>
Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2018 14:09:47 -0500
Message-ID: <CAMm+Lwh3n7hrHvnmyxso1-nLRKmqA4P4tACpLcGGWgJk8Yq+fA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com>
Cc: Sean Turner <sean@sn3rd.com>, SPASM <spasm@ietf.org>, Jacob Hoffman-Andrews <jsha@letsencrypt.org>, Rob Stradling <rob.stradling@comodo.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000002a1f8a057b96148b"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spasm/KHufJqg-q-Nh1uwBmsM5Joalpaw>
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: Mon, 26 Nov 2018 19:10:00 -0000

I did volunteer to be the expert when the registry was set up and was under
the impression that I was. I note that there is also a PKIX SRV Protocol
Labels registry which has arguably been overtaken by events and should have
been a DNS registry, not a PKIX registry all along.

On Mon, Nov 26, 2018 at 1:03 PM Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com> wrote:

> Thanks Sean.
>
> 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
>
>
> I added that to the write-up.
>
> One minor nittty nit on the draft:
>
> s9.1 (remove stray “>”): r/Reserved>/Reserved
>
>
> I leave that to the authors when the address the other nits.
>
> Russ
>
>