IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [stir] Getting PASSPORT Published

Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com> Thu, 21 February 2019 23:52 UTC

Return-Path: <ben@nostrum.com>
X-Original-To: stir@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: stir@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B07B4130EED for <stir@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 21 Feb 2019 15:52:56 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.679
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.679 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_INVALID=0.1, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, T_SPF_HELO_PERMERROR=0.01, T_SPF_PERMERROR=0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.d=nostrum.com
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 vDD_E_31W13f for <stir@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 21 Feb 2019 15:52:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: from nostrum.com (raven-v6.nostrum.com [IPv6:2001:470:d:1130::1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8D747130E0A for <stir@ietf.org>; Thu, 21 Feb 2019 15:52:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [10.0.1.29] (cpe-70-122-203-106.tx.res.rr.com [70.122.203.106]) (authenticated bits=0) by nostrum.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPSA id x1LNqpfG081452 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128 verify=NO); Thu, 21 Feb 2019 17:52:52 -0600 (CST) (envelope-from ben@nostrum.com)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=nostrum.com; s=default; t=1550793173; bh=rsjew16xIvvzR6gK6mvZhGNpm7CuACvaANZScgCtPd8=; h=From:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:Cc:To:References; b=CDSNsBP3Ij/A9IcrdESOHwHQRTDKaH3bOU90POFcDPXqkySp12QaXQ3mbQjoJ/nOi bVqhKR7JwdYEGkWbJfy2ZyjX+ymGE2qE+4ufxiPoXwGfq3zDQYcq4OTu69jHiPvQdF 6aQztjUdbhqYBoQ4Vwt5JdfLL1Yba6JuZO3+6WqQ=
X-Authentication-Warning: raven.nostrum.com: Host cpe-70-122-203-106.tx.res.rr.com [70.122.203.106] claimed to be [10.0.1.29]
From: Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com>
Message-Id: <CAE3F73F-1B75-464E-BDAA-C1231A0EA81C@nostrum.com>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_1F136F91-1990-4F3C-ABD5-78E0B4366F52"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="pgp-sha512"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.2 \(3445.102.3\))
Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2019 17:52:49 -0600
In-Reply-To: <CAHBDyN70Mdtis2Z=XWGnExMz8g5Scuvy_XhcZ+VpnWkeXPddxQ@mail.gmail.com>
Cc: Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com>, draft-ietf-stir-passport-shaken.all@tools.ietf.org, "stir@ietf.org" <stir@ietf.org>
To: Mary Barnes <mary.ietf.barnes@gmail.com>
References: <17d7e50b-5012-74ec-d1a5-9c8b80d60f4e@nostrum.com> <CAHBDyN70Mdtis2Z=XWGnExMz8g5Scuvy_XhcZ+VpnWkeXPddxQ@mail.gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.102.3)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/stir/MJJlYIn04cGVOP2LFtx1dYY-Y60>
Subject: Re: [stir] Getting PASSPORT Published
X-BeenThere: stir@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Secure Telephone Identity Revisited <stir.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/stir>, <mailto:stir-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/stir/>
List-Post: <mailto:stir@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:stir-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/stir>, <mailto:stir-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2019 23:52:57 -0000

<as individual>

Hi Mary,

Is your argument that the original text is good enough for an informational RFC, so there’s no need to improve it? Or that the proposed new text does not improve it?

Thanks!

Ben.

> On Feb 21, 2019, at 5:12 PM, Mary Barnes <mary.ietf.barnes@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> I personally don't see it adds any value to make the proposed change given
> that you're proposing to change the status of the draft to Informational
> (which I'm fine with).  We've had this discussion many, many times with one
> of those threads triggering this draft:
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-peterson-informational-normativity-01
> We could start it again, if you don't agree with what that draft says -
> that will give us a good topic for open mic discussions at the plenary next
> month ;)
> 
> I also thought IESG had published a statement on this, but I can only find
> the one with regards to the references and not the terms:
> https://www.ietf.org/blog/iesg-statement-normative-and-informative-references/

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email