Re: [Trans] I-D Action: draft-ietf-trans-rfc6962-bis-35.txt
Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca> Fri, 26 March 2021 03:03 UTC
Return-Path: <paul@nohats.ca>
X-Original-To: trans@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: trans@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3744D3A0597 for <trans@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 25 Mar 2021 20:03:17 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.097
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.097 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=nohats.ca
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 YVyVfaaWY2Az for <trans@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 25 Mar 2021 20:03:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx.nohats.ca (mx.nohats.ca [193.110.157.68]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2940C3A0489 for <trans@ietf.org>; Thu, 25 Mar 2021 20:03:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by mx.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4F66Gx25pSz35m for <trans@ietf.org>; Fri, 26 Mar 2021 04:03:05 +0100 (CET)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=nohats.ca; s=default; t=1616727785; bh=yzPgVJ9gIY8KRg4YQQ0hdE/6vDx3D8H7RfCf9P92jWo=; h=Date:From:To:Subject; b=FS3Eahu9Gkr8BiR7nFOVzG9JL+tajKSgjuc9SCnW5qx7hdux0Wa40BFYblI3gPMrf 37rUK7pLxGWwlSL2h1fFuQjk4DxZR6TEHStzoKsu3T12gb6tKc03fUQc1Smzm1auZ5 Tt0131pc6eZBhTNKcuibL2Mo0ewQvy3w8lx2cCHQ=
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at mx.nohats.ca
Received: from mx.nohats.ca ([IPv6:::1]) by localhost (mx.nohats.ca [IPv6:::1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id wYviCHMRu-ov for <trans@ietf.org>; Fri, 26 Mar 2021 04:03:04 +0100 (CET)
Received: from bofh.nohats.ca (bofh.nohats.ca [193.110.157.194]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPS for <trans@ietf.org>; Fri, 26 Mar 2021 04:03:04 +0100 (CET)
Received: by bofh.nohats.ca (Postfix, from userid 1000) id B302060299AB; Thu, 25 Mar 2021 23:03:02 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by bofh.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id AA64666B7E for <trans@ietf.org>; Thu, 25 Mar 2021 23:03:02 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2021 23:03:02 -0400
From: Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca>
To: Trans <trans@ietf.org>
Message-ID: <57b781c-53b1-2956-26b-56994eda4f6e@nohats.ca>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"; format="flowed"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/trans/ecx2QSuCmMgbiLnEPif4zBTtNT8>
Subject: Re: [Trans] I-D Action: draft-ietf-trans-rfc6962-bis-35.txt
X-BeenThere: trans@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Public Notary Transparency working group discussion list <trans.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/trans>, <mailto:trans-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/trans/>
List-Post: <mailto:trans@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:trans-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/trans>, <mailto:trans-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2021 03:03:17 -0000
On Thu, 25 Mar 2021, internet-drafts@ietf.org wrote: > A diff from the previous version is available at: > https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-trans-rfc6962-bis-35 Rich Salz worked on the open DISCUSS items from https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-trans-rfc6962-bis/ballot/ The diff shows up a bit larger due to tools formatting changes, but there are two big chunks of changes: 1) Section 6 has been updated for TLS 1.3 clarification (Benjamin Kaduk's DISCUSS) 2) Section 10 has been updated for the additional registry creation requests for IANA (Alexey Melnikov's DISCUSS) While I hope the Ben and Alexey will confirm this resolves their issues, it would be good if other people could also have a look at Rich's proposed changes. The datatracker links further has a bunch a comments that are the last minor things to look at. It would be good if people could also provide diffs for those. I know Rich promised to have a look at those as well, but perhaps others can help him :) Paul & Melinda
- [Trans] I-D Action: draft-ietf-trans-rfc6962-bis-… internet-drafts
- Re: [Trans] I-D Action: draft-ietf-trans-rfc6962-… Paul Wouters