IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Henrik Levkowetz <henrik@levkowetz.com> Wed, 31 July 2019 16:00 UTC

Return-Path: <henrik@levkowetz.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 3F9821202B1; Wed, 31 Jul 2019 09:00:50 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-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 ZdGY1H4aKFLh; Wed, 31 Jul 2019 09:00:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from zinfandel.tools.ietf.org (zinfandel.tools.ietf.org [IPv6:2001:1890:126c::1:2a]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EDE001202B8; Wed, 31 Jul 2019 09:00:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from h-202-242.a357.priv.bahnhof.se ([158.174.202.242]:51015 helo=tannat.localdomain) by zinfandel.tools.ietf.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:DHE_RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <henrik@levkowetz.com>) id 1hsr20-0000in-AL; Wed, 31 Jul 2019 09:00:48 -0700
To: Kathleen Moriarty <kathleen.moriarty.ietf@gmail.com>, IETF Tools Development <tools-development@ietf.org>, Trustees Trustees <trustees@ietf.org>
References: <E8CEA61867EF1E4A9BD05D64D74F76B250F9EE68@MX307CL02.corp.emc.com> <CAHbuEH4YWd_J9+XFUdWUq4kUkiURLEgvoXTT+G9ucdEkVuzP7Q@mail.gmail.com>
From: Henrik Levkowetz <henrik@levkowetz.com>
Message-ID: <f0f7dbbd-9295-3065-5644-e89b3182696f@levkowetz.com>
Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2019 18:00:40 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.11; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAHbuEH4YWd_J9+XFUdWUq4kUkiURLEgvoXTT+G9ucdEkVuzP7Q@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha256"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="NDou0auitT9ENh8ksJOBJs87oDTNWCix9"
X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 158.174.202.242
X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: trustees@ietf.org, tools-development@ietf.org, kathleen.moriarty.ietf@gmail.com
X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: henrik@levkowetz.com
X-SA-Exim-Version: 4.2.1 (built Mon, 26 Dec 2011 16:24:06 +0000)
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes (on zinfandel.tools.ietf.org)
X-Clacks-Overhead: GNU Terry Pratchett
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tools-development/qbCZVxchk63Vqj5kiuXfFWHqvFc>
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 list server <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: Wed, 31 Jul 2019 16:00:50 -0000

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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email