Re: [lamps] Preparing the shepherd write-up for rfc6844bis

Jacob Hoffman-Andrews <jsha@eff.org> Tue, 30 October 2018 22:45 UTC

Return-Path: <jsha@eff.org>
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 CA1F9127133 for <spasm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 30 Oct 2018 15:45:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.471
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.471 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.47, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=eff.org
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 lhTdKG_IX6vq for <spasm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 30 Oct 2018 15:45:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail2.eff.org (mail2.eff.org [173.239.79.204]) (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 6FC68124BE5 for <spasm@ietf.org>; Tue, 30 Oct 2018 15:45:19 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=eff.org; s=mail2; h=Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version: Date:Message-ID:From:References:Cc:To:Subject:Sender:Reply-To:Content-ID: Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc :Resent-Message-ID:List-Id:List-Help:List-Unsubscribe:List-Subscribe: List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=AeFbwvfTdP++//kogTY6y21TEC9IVysqIZa69eeFHfY=; b=4X0js6PACbfxFla56DNiflUo+F vXPGqmbsTtlZ2vdDnEFFlAV4z+TpuaiqlPStX84rALXjcfJZgsM5D/4VprmU9j4GwgT1kGDyI4XRW dcGHS+xaOpUz/i0wDG924GDMgrv4hBqu7H2/xwS8ExAnbMKsM4eSZE9iclWiEJ6ZgaGo=;
Received: ; Tue, 30 Oct 2018 15:45:17 -0700
To: Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com>, Rob Stradling <rob.stradling@comodo.com>, jsha@letsencrypt.org, Phillip Hallam-Baker <phill@hallambaker.com>
Cc: SPASM <spasm@ietf.org>
References: <7FC03EEB-0D87-4454-805C-62DBCBA845C3@vigilsec.com>
From: Jacob Hoffman-Andrews <jsha@eff.org>
Message-ID: <87bde21f-f685-9d2b-78e3-ef459554c724@eff.org>
Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2018 15:45:17 -0700
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.2.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <7FC03EEB-0D87-4454-805C-62DBCBA845C3@vigilsec.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Language: en-US
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spasm/afov7NbBcjxOqsY298FpQLB-CAA>
Subject: Re: [lamps] Preparing the shepherd write-up for rfc6844bis
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, 30 Oct 2018 22:45:23 -0000

I've now made these fixes in the latest working copy at 
https://github.com/jsha/caa-simplification/blob/master/draft-ietf-lamps-rfc6844bis.md. 
The uploading tool is closed until 2018-11-03 23:59 +07, so I can't 
upload a fresh draft. I can provide rendered .txt or .xml format of the 
current working copy to anyone who would prefer to read in those formats.

On 10/30/18 10:04 AM, Russ Housley wrote:
> IDnits reports the following problems:
>
> idnits 2.16.0
>
>    Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist :
>    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>    == The 'Obsoletes: ' line in the draft header should list only the
>       _numbers_ of the RFCs which will be obsoleted by this document (if
>       approved); it should not include the word 'RFC' in the list.
>
> {{{ Easy to fix, and I would not say anything if this was the only issue. }}}
>
>
>    -- The draft header indicates that this document obsoletes RFC6844, but the
>       abstract doesn't seem to mention this, which it should.
>
> {{{ Please add a sentence to the Abstract. }}}
>
>
>    Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard
>    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>       (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references
>       to lower-maturity documents in RFCs)
>
>    == Missing Reference: 'STD13' is mentioned on line 194, but not defined
>
> {{{ Perhaps you meant to reference RFC 1035 here. }}}
>
>
>    ** Downref: Normative reference to an Informational RFC: RFC 3647
>
> {{{ Can this be moved to an Informational reference? }}}
>
>
>    ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 5070 (Obsoleted by RFC 7970)
>
> {{{ Is there a reason to not reference RFC 7970? }}}
>
>
>    ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 5226 (Obsoleted by RFC 8126)
>
> {{{ Is there a reason to not reference RFC 8126? }}}
>
> Russ
>
>
>