IETF Logo Mail Archive

[stir] Consensus call re: draft-ietf-stir-oob-servprovider-06

Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com> Tue, 03 September 2024 21:19 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 E20B6C1CAE7C; Tue, 3 Sep 2024 14:19:38 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.512
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.512 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_ADSP_DISCARD=1.8, DKIM_INVALID=0.1, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, KHOP_HELO_FCRDNS=0.399, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, T_SPF_HELO_PERMERROR=0.01, T_SPF_PERMERROR=0.01, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=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 ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 9Znzsgev9G6s; Tue, 3 Sep 2024 14:19:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nostrum.com (raven-v6.nostrum.com [IPv6:2001:470:d:1130::1]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (P-256) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1223DC15152C; Tue, 3 Sep 2024 14:19:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtpclient.apple (syn-070-120-133-087.res.spectrum.com [70.120.133.87]) (authenticated bits=0) by nostrum.com (8.18.1/8.18.1) with ESMTPSA id 483LJXGX055988 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128 verify=NO); Tue, 3 Sep 2024 16:19:33 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from ben@nostrum.com)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=nostrum.com; s=default; t=1725398374; bh=JjXs79uSuU9Mtj3KluqZ+iW6ro5xqL7gs2kD2pJKLEs=; h=From:Subject:Date:Cc:To; b=FK+AY3qyr8tYgJV5bWuIGIz5zjKfI8znbur1DIKqna762XNrpvCIGlOS7XLR5/7J0 nEemlw2om0k+4dKEvyv4SyEqPuHAcT05I/RXnaqYMlIKj4jDT7AVoxvyAiWLlenR/b NYua2XjMl8F3A8pL+2auYTIOj/5jrID04zDq9JZs=
X-Authentication-Warning: raven.nostrum.com: Host syn-070-120-133-087.res.spectrum.com [70.120.133.87] claimed to be smtpclient.apple
From: Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 16.0 \(3776.700.51\))
Message-Id: <600908AF-3713-4653-ACF5-3D091AF6D912@nostrum.com>
Date: Tue, 03 Sep 2024 16:19:27 -0500
To: IETF STIR Mail List <stir@ietf.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3776.700.51)
Message-ID-Hash: BDJBK7HW3TNDM5ORR2YIVHP5WP54B22L
X-Message-ID-Hash: BDJBK7HW3TNDM5ORR2YIVHP5WP54B22L
X-MailFrom: ben@nostrum.com
X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; emergency; loop; banned-address; member-moderation; header-match-stir.ietf.org-0; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header
CC: STIR Chairs <stir-chairs@ietf.org>, "Peterson, Jon" <jon.peterson@transunion.com>
X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.9rc4
Precedence: list
Subject: [stir] Consensus call re: draft-ietf-stir-oob-servprovider-06
List-Id: Secure Telephone Identity Revisited <stir.ietf.org>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/stir/vrcSwxJO9BdqMmD5gl-Dbo39Qfw>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/stir>
List-Help: <mailto:stir-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Owner: <mailto:stir-owner@ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:stir@ietf.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:stir-join@ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:stir-leave@ietf.org>

Hi All,

Our minutes from IETF120 contain the following paragraphs:

> draft-ietf-stir-oob-servprovider and draft-ietf-stir-4916-update are
> with the IESG. Orie Steele (Responsible AD) asked if the downref to RFC
> 8816 (REST interface) draft-ietf-stir-oob-servprovider is sufficient for
> implementors.
> 
> After discussion, the sense of the room is that the document is
> sufficient as is, but the chairs agreed to make a consensus call on the
> mailing list.
> 

This is that consensus call. Is there any objection to the proposition that the downref to RFC 8816 in draft-ietf-stir-oob-servprovider-06 is sufficient as-is and that no changes for this purpose are need?

Please send any objections or other related feedback to the STIR list and the author by 17 September.

Thanks!

Ben.

v2.46.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status