Re: [lamps] Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on draft-ietf-lamps-eai-addresses-15: (with COMMENT)

Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com> Thu, 04 January 2018 19:17 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 49D80126CD8 for <spasm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 4 Jan 2018 11:17:12 -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] autolearn=unavailable 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 J_KYZGtOv2mI for <spasm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 4 Jan 2018 11:17:08 -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 AE32E12D77D for <spasm@ietf.org>; Thu, 4 Jan 2018 11:17:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.smeinc.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id D1EB930078E for <spasm@ietf.org>; Thu, 4 Jan 2018 14:17:07 -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 5Vie950mKIER for <spasm@ietf.org>; Thu, 4 Jan 2018 14:17:06 -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 2237730041E; Thu, 4 Jan 2018 14:17:06 -0500 (EST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.3 \(3273\))
From: Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com>
In-Reply-To: <151507723820.23678.730726448053216801.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2018 14:17:10 -0500
Cc: IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-lamps-eai-addresses@ietf.org, SPASM <spasm@ietf.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <3B8E1807-E30F-49FD-8C37-BBA793ECFA3B@vigilsec.com>
References: <151507723820.23678.730726448053216801.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
To: =?utf-8?Q?Mirja_K=C3=BChlewind?= <ietf@kuehlewind.net>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3273)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spasm/gPQJ7d6iZx2izmHEVBTQYLPWatw>
Subject: Re: [lamps] =?utf-8?q?Mirja_K=C3=BChlewind=27s_No_Objection_on_draft?= =?utf-8?q?-ietf-lamps-eai-addresses-15=3A_=28with_COMMENT=29?=
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: Thu, 04 Jan 2018 19:17:12 -0000

Mirja:

Please see draft-ietf-lamps-rfc5280-i18n-update, which is already in the RFC Editor's queue waiting for this document to catch up.

Russ


> On Jan 4, 2018, at 9:47 AM, Mirja Kühlewind <ietf@kuehlewind.net> wrote:
> 
> Mirja Kühlewind has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-lamps-eai-addresses-15: No Objection
> 
> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
> email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
> introductory paragraph, however.)
> 
> 
> Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
> for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
> 
> 
> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lamps-eai-addresses/
> 
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> I don't know much about this subject, so I'm balloting 'No Objection', however,
> section 4 and section 6 read to me that this doc should update RFC5280. Please
> check!
> 
>