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

Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com> Wed, 31 October 2018 19:49 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 89AF0128766 for <spasm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 31 Oct 2018 12:49:09 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 rdYlSIhcY414 for <spasm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 31 Oct 2018 12:49:07 -0700 (PDT)
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 3DC1C1277C8 for <spasm@ietf.org>; Wed, 31 Oct 2018 12:49:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.smeinc.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id DB2653002C1 for <spasm@ietf.org>; Wed, 31 Oct 2018 15:49:04 -0400 (EDT)
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 khk9Y7pZn_TP for <spasm@ietf.org>; Wed, 31 Oct 2018 15:49:03 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from a860b60074bd.fios-router.home (pool-71-178-45-35.washdc.fios.verizon.net [71.178.45.35]) by mail.smeinc.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 8CD17300A46; Wed, 31 Oct 2018 15:49:02 -0400 (EDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.5 \(3445.9.1\))
From: Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com>
In-Reply-To: <87bde21f-f685-9d2b-78e3-ef459554c724@eff.org>
Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2018 15:49:02 -0400
Cc: Rob Stradling <rob.stradling@comodo.com>, jsha@letsencrypt.org, Phillip Hallam-Baker <phill@hallambaker.com>, SPASM <spasm@ietf.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <323CEDEA-1693-4137-A7D1-4815E05B1612@vigilsec.com>
References: <7FC03EEB-0D87-4454-805C-62DBCBA845C3@vigilsec.com> <87bde21f-f685-9d2b-78e3-ef459554c724@eff.org>
To: Jacob Hoffman-Andrews <jsha@eff.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.9.1)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spasm/xfYl63obaDYZ29r7HQuzguB4Lro>
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: Wed, 31 Oct 2018 19:49:09 -0000

The document is missing a revision number.  I am assuming that will get filled in properly when you do the post.

Otherwise, it looks good to me.

Russ


> On Oct 30, 2018, at 6:45 PM, Jacob Hoffman-Andrews <jsha@eff.org> wrote:
> 
> 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
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Spasm mailing list
> Spasm@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spasm