IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [TOOLS-DEVELOPMENT] Fwd: PKCS#9 and #10

Robert Sparks <rjsparks@nostrum.com> Fri, 15 January 2021 21:24 UTC

Return-Path: <rjsparks@nostrum.com>
X-Original-To: tools-development@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tools-development@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DB07F3A11D6; Fri, 15 Jan 2021 13:24:19 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.931
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.931 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_INVALID=0.1, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, KHOP_HELO_FCRDNS=0.009, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.262, T_SPF_HELO_PERMERROR=0.01, T_SPF_PERMERROR=0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham 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 t8pRLaCBtqqg; Fri, 15 Jan 2021 13:24:18 -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 344B93A0AE6; Fri, 15 Jan 2021 13:24:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: from unformal.localdomain ([47.186.1.92]) (authenticated bits=0) by nostrum.com (8.16.1/8.16.1) with ESMTPSA id 10FLODd6074523 (version=TLSv1.3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 15 Jan 2021 15:24:14 -0600 (CST) (envelope-from rjsparks@nostrum.com)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=nostrum.com; s=default; t=1610745855; bh=m1rNkrQgJuWLbUmqm84A8r860akL7hDur6TbhFZYiCI=; h=Subject:To:Cc:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To; b=FsP3REP9bxQ65QDikkTEJdeQXmlS8nqG0J5xnaBbA/Pxuj6TRz0AfBfcy7Dgbo9nv RISELyjEzO9vRX3ynwqy4DNWucUgmu4TmtbrtKcoiwNpcpsRpkTJ1XgOtG/fE3GvBJ zK1vRaikBSMJQI6CluEDpQss+n2NwGX8VXsPFdvs=
X-Authentication-Warning: raven.nostrum.com: Host [47.186.1.92] claimed to be unformal.localdomain
To: Kathleen Moriarty <kathleen.moriarty.ietf@gmail.com>, Henrik Levkowetz <henrik@levkowetz.com>, Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu>
Cc: Trustees Trustees <trustees@ietf.org>, IETF Tools Development <tools-development@ietf.org>
References: <E8CEA61867EF1E4A9BD05D64D74F76B250F9EE68@MX307CL02.corp.emc.com> <CAHbuEH4YWd_J9+XFUdWUq4kUkiURLEgvoXTT+G9ucdEkVuzP7Q@mail.gmail.com> <f0f7dbbd-9295-3065-5644-e89b3182696f@levkowetz.com> <CAHbuEH7XmEVGwcUcXgETB35gdve9N8xBvd3W7+c3OFbs6BDFww@mail.gmail.com>
From: Robert Sparks <rjsparks@nostrum.com>
Message-ID: <a436e583-83e9-cede-f2b8-c903d114b976@nostrum.com>
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2021 15:24:08 -0600
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.6.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAHbuEH7XmEVGwcUcXgETB35gdve9N8xBvd3W7+c3OFbs6BDFww@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------31CCF11F4B4D2A6BE82F72D0"
Content-Language: en-US
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tools-development/1nYEzn85a_NgjOSFztpnJ1tO8rY>
Subject: Re: [TOOLS-DEVELOPMENT] Fwd: PKCS#9 and #10
X-BeenThere: tools-development@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Tools Development mail list <tools-development.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/tools-development>, <mailto:tools-development-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/tools-development/>
List-Post: <mailto:tools-development@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tools-development-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-development>, <mailto:tools-development-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2021 21:24:20 -0000

There's been context-away.

As Henrik suggested, you _could_ enter them as IPR disclosures (with the 
pdf as an attachment), and those would come up in searches on any 
documents that obsoleted/modified these.

Why does that not seem the right thing to do?

RjS

On 1/15/21 10:37 AM, Kathleen Moriarty wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Is there any way we can address this?  Ben, current AD is assuming the 
> transfer didn't happen even though it was complete.  There's no marker 
> attached to the datatracker record to indicate the transfer for these 
> 2 documents happened.
>
> Thank you,
> Kathleen
>
> On Wed, Jul 31, 2019 at 12:00 PM Henrik Levkowetz 
> <henrik@levkowetz.com <mailto:henrik@levkowetz.com>> wrote:
>
>     Hi Kathleen,
>
>     On 2019-07-30 21:29, Kathleen Moriarty wrote:
>     > Hello!
>     >
>     > I am not sure how I can attach this change in the copyright and
>     change
>     > control status to RFC2985 and RFC2986.  The IPR disclosure page
>     doesn't
>     > quite fit as the license is specific to the standard and opening
>     it up
>     > further for use.  For the other PKCS documents, we did a
>     revision of the
>     > RFC.  I'd like this to not be lost with me and for others doing
>     work with
>     > these standards to know that it is fine for them to do so.  Any
>     ideas?
>
>     IPR declarations carry forward through "obsoletes" and "replaces"
>     document
>     relationships, so if a new RFC marks the previous one as
>     obsoleted, the
>     IPR declaration should show up for any new RFCs for the same standard.
>
>     Registering the change for the current RFCs seems to be the right
>     thing
>     to do.
>
>
>     Best regards,
>
>             Henrik
>
>
>
> -- 
>
> Best regards,
> Kathleen
>
> _______________________________________________
> TOOLS-DEVELOPMENT mailing list
> TOOLS-DEVELOPMENT@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-development

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email