IETF Logo Mail Archive

[lamps] draft-ietf-lamps-rfc4210bis was: Re: WG Last Call: draft-ietf-lamps-x509-policy-graph-01

Michael StJohns <msj@nthpermutation.com> Sat, 09 December 2023 21:53 UTC

Return-Path: <msj@nthpermutation.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 4254BC14F61C for <spasm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 9 Dec 2023 13:53:29 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.904
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.904 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=nthpermutation-com.20230601.gappssmtp.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id gALUiiGWdjh5 for <spasm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 9 Dec 2023 13:53:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-qk1-x729.google.com (mail-qk1-x729.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::729]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6FE58C14F5EF for <spasm@ietf.org>; Sat, 9 Dec 2023 13:53:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-qk1-x729.google.com with SMTP id af79cd13be357-77f642b9a22so39471785a.0 for <spasm@ietf.org>; Sat, 09 Dec 2023 13:53:25 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=nthpermutation-com.20230601.gappssmtp.com; s=20230601; t=1702158804; x=1702763604; darn=ietf.org; h=in-reply-to:from:references:cc:to:content-language:subject :user-agent:mime-version:date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:date :message-id:reply-to; bh=Rw2drZW6VPAq6T3d+mQCBS8yNn0yLhdsyGBiXYggJ1w=; b=AepR+99kTzIZ+a7gU1JNQhF6nFMZ+qdPNDH/yrA+ufDTMPEW3QsvQF8YL5tLJip1tN xbeOlgnNeqL0qqnb6X9UFjfY9brQZhYcOHZQkuREhWlq4NihPJRvYaG6LWrMF0X2xUNd iKh9xs7vMFXv2lHiFaJS5ZSRCyBpjvsEcqrGS+3aGj1Byed6mwa2BGAp6ggZ/Z8jXvGb gcSRtIql5xGfIC3wlnNK9ZttU29pqjEoI43wQzHjaBAy04QHcZzT+ax6c+QaGiesfbRC tPfXjDPeFr09yUJ0xChDoB83HxR/1z/jFxB/ap7+V8dEpoZlbmd/GFEIpl8L8R399SvY 4boQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1702158804; x=1702763604; h=in-reply-to:from:references:cc:to:content-language:subject :user-agent:mime-version:date:message-id:x-gm-message-state:from:to :cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=Rw2drZW6VPAq6T3d+mQCBS8yNn0yLhdsyGBiXYggJ1w=; b=AGwppw/q/fAg1c/SbhHdp9rLYD4AYHLE1nukhyeZrxAudiRlfxfXc0Q8kuX1joKqg8 cREqHQqZ1SS5ZXZJwgaM17HQBViISSVqQUELWKzwW0AjVRFzGB24XHSwiwJpyoTVmZSW nB7LYPigU+zbrP2aP5Pi1fwm7MKAgM5I6rsBtdQGg9zvxC+LbcZ8cWTLzeAFV7D5EECj m+K5t/jWHh8wDUd3gVDIsFepsLlsEYwtzuia1V4BcudUlDz5+oguYijogyWbGLBfiGIj /I2PHTPUW7vq1BB1nqBctx/jXa8gV7s6JF8OaDOMFz6fzkoWPcTFrvRwFte8vwWwbJ4t 7JkA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YyyIBrhlfGdkgPzL3l2LUFDPFwoe4zQ49qc/Po/6gQEM/e8p1Sa vM4X2EbadcDaNl58LgcVZI4ehtfZsYUNrA36WlE=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IHcl9i8p8ZVruzBfFFRGF21rdUkNT9SYJn4V0MuHX5xn0+tAAXCSyfeaUKqpYlHEnISeSkp8A==
X-Received: by 2002:a05:620a:6a8a:b0:77e:fbba:644c with SMTP id ud10-20020a05620a6a8a00b0077efbba644cmr3991915qkn.43.1702158804089; Sat, 09 Dec 2023 13:53:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.1.23] (pool-108-31-156-76.washdc.fios.verizon.net. [108.31.156.76]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id g3-20020a05620a278300b0077f435ed844sm1663120qkp.112.2023.12.09.13.53.23 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Sat, 09 Dec 2023 13:53:23 -0800 (PST)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------E62wvpSbjHUZ2aeryiP06UF6"
Message-ID: <53b35103-eff1-43f4-9a11-d7ed9b9771c2@nthpermutation.com>
Date: Sat, 09 Dec 2023 16:53:22 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US
To: Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com>
Cc: LAMPS <spasm@ietf.org>
References: <99DEDEBF-35D7-4EE5-BABF-63A9F6D02C29@vigilsec.com> <3EEC4C31-31E2-462C-BB82-010F17E996A0@vigilsec.com> <3931a166-c465-4861-8101-50ebadb99a21@nthpermutation.com> <4CEF723E-614F-446A-8D80-EC63AF07C8F5@vigilsec.com> <d66f65e1-0119-46a0-8764-29fc65f63e75@nthpermutation.com> <801C3122-0410-426E-BFB8-F269CA1DA9D9@vigilsec.com> <73092f78-ba01-4709-9e39-7658e300e788@nthpermutation.com> <FBBC550B-257A-4189-84AA-E6493EC008F2@vigilsec.com> <3ae04ff9-7ad5-40fb-8552-832a3a43847b@nthpermutation.com> <F070F503-DE63-4E86-A2AA-BB77CC618F90@vigilsec.com>
From: Michael StJohns <msj@nthpermutation.com>
In-Reply-To: <F070F503-DE63-4E86-A2AA-BB77CC618F90@vigilsec.com>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spasm/RnI558-3hRVcgx3E00Ki8lRlS8U>
Subject: [lamps] draft-ietf-lamps-rfc4210bis was: Re: WG Last Call: draft-ietf-lamps-x509-policy-graph-01
X-BeenThere: spasm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: This is the mail list for the LAMPS Working Group <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: Sat, 09 Dec 2023 21:53:29 -0000

Thanks for the changes in the write up.  Comment below.


On 12/9/2023 4:19 PM, Russ Housley wrote:
> Mike:
>
>> On 12/8/2023 2:56 PM, Russ Housley wrote:
>> I didn't actually notice that one at the time - now RFC 9480. But what a mess.   I see that there is a RFC4210bis  document in progress (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lamps-rfc4210bis/) and not one for 4211 - is that the one you meant?  I also see that the 4210bis document is missing an Obsoletes RFC9480 tag, except it can't have one because RFC9480 updates multiple documents... I'm not seeing this as a shining example of what to do....  the only saving grace is that the referenced document here  is only cutting and pasting  a single upstream document.
> Yes, I meant RFC 4210.
>
> RFC 4210 is updated by RFC 6712, RFC 9480, and RFC9481.  rfc4210bis should obsolete RFC 4210 and RFC 9480.
>
Except that RFC9480 doesn't just update RFC 4210. It also updates RFC 
5912 and RFC 6712. If you obsolete 9480, what does that mean for the 
changes marked within that document that apply to 5912 and 6712? 
Generally "Obsolete" in RFC speak means "completely replaced", but the 
4210bis document doesn't completely replace RFC9480.

Can a document be "Updated By" a second document that's marked as Obsolete?

As I said - this looks like a mess.

Mike

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email