IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu> Wed, 31 July 2019 19:41 UTC

Return-Path: <kaduk@mit.edu>
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 8B6DE120094 for <spasm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 31 Jul 2019 12:41:24 -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 aptIGgb3BNZi for <spasm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 31 Jul 2019 12:41:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from outgoing.mit.edu (outgoing-auth-1.mit.edu [18.9.28.11]) (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 16ADF120018 for <spasm@ietf.org>; Wed, 31 Jul 2019 12:41:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from kduck.mit.edu ([24.16.140.251]) (authenticated bits=56) (User authenticated as kaduk@ATHENA.MIT.EDU) by outgoing.mit.edu (8.14.7/8.12.4) with ESMTP id x6VJfIsL004624 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Wed, 31 Jul 2019 15:41:20 -0400
Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2019 14:41:17 -0500
From: Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu>
To: Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com>
Cc: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>, LAMPS WG <spasm@ietf.org>
Message-ID: <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>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <547B521B-A93B-4E33-96A9-8B2DEE216748@vigilsec.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spasm/sLRj1sgj1HBX4NNnEB-HzosZdNc>
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 19:41:25 -0000

On Sun, Jul 28, 2019 at 12:49:40PM -0400, Russ Housley 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?

Thanks,

Ben

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email