IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [lamps] DRAFT LAMPS WG Agenda for IETF 104

Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com> Tue, 26 February 2019 17:23 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 B66CB12785F for <spasm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 26 Feb 2019 09:23:11 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001] 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 t820I1RsCC4s for <spasm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 26 Feb 2019 09:23:10 -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 56C93124B0C for <spasm@ietf.org>; Tue, 26 Feb 2019 09:23:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.smeinc.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id B761D300A9A for <spasm@ietf.org>; Tue, 26 Feb 2019 12:04:52 -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 JyeBMo7h_Eq4 for <spasm@ietf.org>; Tue, 26 Feb 2019 12:04:51 -0500 (EST)
Received: from a860b60074bd.fios-router.home (pool-108-45-137-105.washdc.fios.verizon.net [108.45.137.105]) by mail.smeinc.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 9C0EB30017E; Tue, 26 Feb 2019 12:04:51 -0500 (EST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.2 \(3445.102.3\))
From: Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com>
In-Reply-To: <a6db197f-e48b-e81f-80b6-b651c56be3b3@eff.org>
Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2019 12:23:08 -0500
Cc: SPASM <spasm@ietf.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <C6B81DDB-0A52-4E2A-985B-879B0D2367B2@vigilsec.com>
References: <1B5E3413-3102-4A1E-A202-065EC9F8D86C@vigilsec.com> <a6db197f-e48b-e81f-80b6-b651c56be3b3@eff.org>
To: Jacob Hoffman-Andrews <jsha@eff.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.102.3)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spasm/_gITFZvwDlfXMew4-BaUzra7S9c>
Subject: Re: [lamps] DRAFT LAMPS WG Agenda for IETF 104
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: Tue, 26 Feb 2019 17:23:12 -0000

Correct.  I put a slot on the agenda to handle any review comments that we receive.  If we do not get any, then that item will be very short ;-)

Russ


> On Feb 26, 2019, at 11:38 AM, Jacob Hoffman-Andrews <jsha@eff.org> wrote:
> 
> I think we don't need a slot for RFC 6844 bis. We're just waiting on AD review now.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email