Re: [Spasm] BoF in Berlin or what?

I agree with Jim and Wei, we could easily add one agenda item for that topic.

Russ

On Jun 17, 2016, at 3:18 PM, Salz, Rich <rsalz@akamai.com> wrote:

> If CURDLE doesn't meet, could we handle those issues here?
> 
>>> I would really like to discuss how the ECDH and EdDSA algorithms are 
>>> being identified in PKIX, in part because I want it to match what is 
>>> being done in other groups.  So I would appreciate a meeting.
>> 
>> This needs to get sorted out.  It has an impact on the CMS-related drafts too.
>> That said, we might be able to sort it out on the mail list before Berlin.
> 
> --  
> Senior Architect, Akamai Technologies
> IM: richsalz@jabber.at Twitter: RichSalz
> 
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Russ Housley [mailto:housley@vigilsec.com]
>> Sent: Friday, June 17, 2016 3:16 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