IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com> Wed, 31 January 2018 21:34 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 3836612FAC6 for <spasm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 31 Jan 2018 13:34:37 -0800 (PST)
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, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 vBmNb_1O4jWS for <spasm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 31 Jan 2018 13:34:35 -0800 (PST)
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 DB66A12D838 for <spasm@ietf.org>; Wed, 31 Jan 2018 13:34:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.smeinc.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 959BE3005D0 for <spasm@ietf.org>; Wed, 31 Jan 2018 16:34:32 -0500 (EST)
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 imI1ZNfjY4M6 for <spasm@ietf.org>; Wed, 31 Jan 2018 16:34:30 -0500 (EST)
Received: from a860b60074bd.home (pool-108-45-101-150.washdc.fios.verizon.net [108.45.101.150]) by mail.smeinc.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 68E2F30040A; Wed, 31 Jan 2018 16:34:30 -0500 (EST)
From: Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com>
Message-Id: <331F276B-6216-4C6D-91B4-3FEEB16ADC62@vigilsec.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_3B7891D9-9929-4958-BED5-AEFE687D4A19"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.3 \(3273\))
Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2018 16:34:31 -0500
In-Reply-To: <3B006823-7B2B-4438-8C7A-909C35F8B6C2@akamai.com>
Cc: Mike Jenkins <mjjenki@tycho.ncsc.mil>, "spasm@ietf.org" <spasm@ietf.org>, Lydia Zieglar <llziegl@nsa.gov>, "m.jenkins.364706+work@gmail.com" <m.jenkins.364706+work@gmail.com>
To: Rich Salz <rsalz@akamai.com>
References: <863b6e71-c179-3856-9edf-28e8306031e4@tycho.ncsc.mil> <3B006823-7B2B-4438-8C7A-909C35F8B6C2@akamai.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3273)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spasm/VPGkWCeIC0bHGDRDYpB_U3rLy-0>
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 21:34:37 -0000

> On Jan 31, 2018, at 4:15 PM, Salz, Rich <rsalz@akamai.com> wrote:
> 
> 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.
>  
> _______________________________________________
> Spasm mailing list
> Spasm@ietf.org <mailto:Spasm@ietf.org>
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spasm <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spasm>

v2.27.8 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status