IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [lamps] rfc7030-est clarifications and LAMPS charter

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Wed, 31 July 2019 20:48 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
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 DFC1B12006D for <spasm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 31 Jul 2019 13:48:10 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-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 9jm2-eJQ2zwy for <spasm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 31 Jul 2019 13:48:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:3:216:3eff:fe7c:d1f3]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0053D12002F for <spasm@ietf.org>; Wed, 31 Jul 2019 13:48:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sandelman.ca (unknown [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2:56b2:3ff:fe0b:d84]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8123E380BE; Wed, 31 Jul 2019 16:47:41 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id C00BCD92; Wed, 31 Jul 2019 16:48:07 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu>
cc: Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com>, LAMPS WG <spasm@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <20190731194117.GG1006@kduck.mit.edu>
References: <21504.1564174053@dooku.sandelman.ca> <9CE09410-5F6B-407F-B239-888E3136F24A@vigilsec.com> <547B521B-A93B-4E33-96A9-8B2DEE216748@vigilsec.com> <20190731194117.GG1006@kduck.mit.edu>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6; nmh 1.7+dev; GNU Emacs 24.5.1
X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m<nPbLgmtKK-5dC@#:k
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg="pgp-sha256"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2019 16:48:07 -0400
Message-ID: <14050.1564606087@localhost>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spasm/W2Zlx7iM4Hr7wX6o_tGPr1ad52c>
Subject: Re: [lamps] rfc7030-est clarifications and LAMPS charter
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: Wed, 31 Jul 2019 20:48:11 -0000

Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu> wrote:
    >> Thinking about this some more, I think that the best way to resolve
    >> this errata is to provide an appendix with an ASN.1 module.  Here is
    >> my suggestion:

    > That feels somewhat heavyweight for an erratum.  What are the pros/cons
    > of errata vs. small updating RFC?

The intention is to have a small updating RFC.

-- 
]               Never tell me the odds!                 | ipv6 mesh networks [
]   Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works        |    IoT architect   [
]     mcr@sandelman.ca  http://www.sandelman.ca/        |   ruby on rails    [

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email