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

Jacob Hoffman-Andrews <> Tue, 27 November 2018 01:38 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 90C4012F1A5 for <>; Mon, 26 Nov 2018 17:38:57 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -8.461
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.461 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-1.46, 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: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id eCOQEnMRsrJN for <>; Mon, 26 Nov 2018 17:38:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E8477129A87 for <>; Mon, 26 Nov 2018 17:38:54 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed;; 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=cC6fzoUjYfEw+eH5QPxeXHY5rA9APjXE/BzvylqVvHI=; b=DtO5zAOBRW/Yn9EEhQDTcIuUMb 55fEJvVZLDa4Lw8RgIzVPwfti+h5CoLqyqFRhA6U9SbTQvmw8yRyGgbuo/7G79STxpOFGCI5yK9Yz czq5TtDl+CXPMBH9PRFsozeGgbd0q4fcxujA5GhdOZcZUxxta+bBoTdxVBmhxXAfo2lI=;
Received: ; Mon, 26 Nov 2018 17:38:51 -0800
References: <> <>
From: Jacob Hoffman-Andrews <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2018 17:38:50 -0800
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: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [lamps] Preparing the shepherd write-up for rfc6844bis
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "This is a venue for discussion of doing Some Pkix And SMime \(spasm\) work." <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2018 01:38:58 -0000

On 11/25/18 9:09 PM, wrote:
 > 2. At section 9 IANA considerations, Reference should be changed as 
this draft
 >     because this draft obsoletes RFC 6844.

This and Sean Turner's comment both relate to the IANA Considerations 
section. I have to admit I'm not familiar with best practice for an IANA 
Considerations section when writing an "Obsoletes" RFC. Should 
RFC6844bis have an empty section, since the relevant registries were 
already established by RFC6844bis? That's what I tried to do in this 
doc, though I accidentally left in one of the sub-sections 
("Certification Authority Restriction Flags").

> 1. Before proceeding, please fix errata of RFC 6844.
>     Most of them still remain.
>     See

Related to IANA Considerations section:

  - We no longer treat DNAME specially.
  - Parameters are now split by semicolons.
  - We added explicit wording about non-empty CAA RRsets.
  - We fixed the ABNF.
  - This was the discovery algorithm change.
  - This was obsoleted by the revised language we used for the discovery 

Needs addressing:

I'll work on those last two.