IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [lamps] Request for review of revised RFC 5759

"Salz, Rich" <rsalz@akamai.com> Wed, 31 January 2018 21:15 UTC

Return-Path: <rsalz@akamai.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 EA5CA12FA98 for <spasm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 31 Jan 2018 13:15:53 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.7
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=akamai.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 ZqSWxdOLpFrf for <spasm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 31 Jan 2018 13:15:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx0a-00190b01.pphosted.com (mx0a-00190b01.pphosted.com [IPv6:2620:100:9001:583::1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A277F12EAEC for <spasm@ietf.org>; Wed, 31 Jan 2018 13:15:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: from pps.filterd (m0122333.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-00190b01.pphosted.com (8.16.0.22/8.16.0.22) with SMTP id w0VLBLMK021321; Wed, 31 Jan 2018 21:15:51 GMT
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=akamai.com; h=from : to : cc : subject : date : message-id : references : in-reply-to : content-type : mime-version; s=jan2016.eng; bh=cWAIn58fo8VBCUPl0X5XwWla6r6SaqAGUGoKrjTx1Uc=; b=o/0bbYwJhYvKvCSipsGuKzjf8MIHgv6ZUXyCdzkOErTKLbFKM6VpVng8ZRuupBIn8B0/ pJCGqNnpqkhe3KHOLkYQ8SyIXszazGpEpV2jhZFV8bsFDva3I4OuD6VHwnSlL8TBQT3G 2Y7qiK2enevFKf2i/20qLG2F86YUwn5fxmvcprVyLNDHkAk9hLLYcTrhmC1f2qtfTHi/ U+dqc/wyTDssmnQjNyC1uv5/ftRtXUXwF1GnYTCmNgVSpS2c6jq3QgwSw+07/xN9wufL KAVoMCCzZkYV1GGdKsJPEF9uryL9rnZPOrRVI0p1ImFK8C05ENlDO28l1q0f82smqIfI kw==
Received: from prod-mail-ppoint2 (prod-mail-ppoint2.akamai.com [184.51.33.19]) by mx0a-00190b01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 2fu1xb4dun-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Wed, 31 Jan 2018 21:15:50 +0000
Received: from pps.filterd (prod-mail-ppoint2.akamai.com [127.0.0.1]) by prod-mail-ppoint2.akamai.com (8.16.0.21/8.16.0.21) with SMTP id w0VLAdWR012862; Wed, 31 Jan 2018 16:15:49 -0500
Received: from email.msg.corp.akamai.com ([172.27.123.33]) by prod-mail-ppoint2.akamai.com with ESMTP id 2frnmyqkqd-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Wed, 31 Jan 2018 16:15:49 -0500
Received: from USMA1EX-DAG1MB5.msg.corp.akamai.com (172.27.123.105) by usma1ex-dag3mb6.msg.corp.akamai.com (172.27.123.54) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1263.5; Wed, 31 Jan 2018 13:15:48 -0800
Received: from USMA1EX-DAG1MB1.msg.corp.akamai.com (172.27.123.101) by usma1ex-dag1mb5.msg.corp.akamai.com (172.27.123.105) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1263.5; Wed, 31 Jan 2018 16:15:47 -0500
Received: from USMA1EX-DAG1MB1.msg.corp.akamai.com ([172.27.123.101]) by usma1ex-dag1mb1.msg.corp.akamai.com ([172.27.123.101]) with mapi id 15.00.1263.000; Wed, 31 Jan 2018 16:15:47 -0500
From: "Salz, Rich" <rsalz@akamai.com>
To: Michael Jenkins <mjjenki@tycho.ncsc.mil>, "spasm@ietf.org" <spasm@ietf.org>
CC: "Zieglar, Lydia Q" <llziegl@nsa.gov>, "m.jenkins.364706+work@gmail.com" <m.jenkins.364706+work@gmail.com>
Thread-Topic: [lamps] Request for review of revised RFC 5759
Thread-Index: AQHTmtZjbRJmoU0WxE+Fpej2JapoRaOOz3eA
Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2018 21:15:47 +0000
Message-ID: <3B006823-7B2B-4438-8C7A-909C35F8B6C2@akamai.com>
References: <863b6e71-c179-3856-9edf-28e8306031e4@tycho.ncsc.mil>
In-Reply-To: <863b6e71-c179-3856-9edf-28e8306031e4@tycho.ncsc.mil>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/f.27.0.171010
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [172.19.39.19]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_3B0068237B2B44388C7A909C35F8B6C2akamaicom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10432:, , definitions=2018-01-31_10:, , signatures=0
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 suspectscore=0 malwarescore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 mlxscore=0 mlxlogscore=867 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1711220000 definitions=main-1801310264
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10432:, , definitions=2018-01-31_10:, , signatures=0
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 priorityscore=1501 malwarescore=0 suspectscore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 clxscore=1011 lowpriorityscore=0 mlxscore=0 impostorscore=0 mlxlogscore=815 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1711220000 definitions=main-1801310264
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spasm/TMjYUtsTcODp0Ovi3WljXPW3q-c>
Subject: Re: [lamps] Request for review of revised RFC 5759
X-BeenThere: spasm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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, 31 Jan 2018 21:15:54 -0000

  *   As part of this process, the older RFCs will be moved to Historical status, and we plan to publish new RFCs via the ISE. We are seeking review and comment of the drafts prior to publication, and so will be announcing the drafts on appropriate mail-lists as we produce them.


Interesting question.  I don’t think an independent RFC can make-obsolete an existing WG RFC.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email