IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Trans] Summary of DISCUSS items for draft-ietf-trans-rfc6962-bis

Roman Danyliw <rdd@cert.org> Wed, 03 June 2020 22:34 UTC

Return-Path: <rdd@cert.org>
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 C91BD3A0881; Wed, 3 Jun 2020 15:34:23 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.099
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.099 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_PASS=-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=cert.org
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 eGTU2Zn5p0uJ; Wed, 3 Jun 2020 15:34:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from veto.sei.cmu.edu (veto.sei.cmu.edu [147.72.252.17]) (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 4C7673A08B2; Wed, 3 Jun 2020 15:34:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from delp.sei.cmu.edu (delp.sei.cmu.edu [10.64.21.31]) by veto.sei.cmu.edu (8.14.7/8.14.7) with ESMTP id 053MYIR0015006; Wed, 3 Jun 2020 18:34:18 -0400
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 veto.sei.cmu.edu 053MYIR0015006
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cert.org; s=yc2bmwvrj62m; t=1591223658; bh=A218pdiMB38oxbzAqaYw0hu9mPEclat5YPbBDjQ0ID4=; h=From:To:CC:Subject:Date:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=kc5tpu73KALXd+8sI79N4OeRNdpEAZz3javpjnQduN9JlD8t+RGV2UTjXeT9pV65f bf43m+9IIvu6hR8vvz+ENbXZWU+s9Siya87Ft4QHkSdUdGduZ0HYM8zo+rGt9PVujs cLCXSaa6w+qAgaAlEOxV8ZweC+cyj+MjV6Klw5WA=
Received: from CASCADE.ad.sei.cmu.edu (cascade.ad.sei.cmu.edu [10.64.28.248]) by delp.sei.cmu.edu (8.14.7/8.14.7) with ESMTP id 053MYFWY015286; Wed, 3 Jun 2020 18:34:15 -0400
Received: from MURIEL.ad.sei.cmu.edu (147.72.252.47) by CASCADE.ad.sei.cmu.edu (10.64.28.248) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.487.0; Wed, 3 Jun 2020 18:34:14 -0400
Received: from MORRIS.ad.sei.cmu.edu (147.72.252.46) by MURIEL.ad.sei.cmu.edu (147.72.252.47) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.1979.3; Wed, 3 Jun 2020 18:34:14 -0400
Received: from MORRIS.ad.sei.cmu.edu ([fe80::555b:9498:552e:d1bb]) by MORRIS.ad.sei.cmu.edu ([fe80::555b:9498:552e:d1bb%13]) with mapi id 15.01.1979.003; Wed, 3 Jun 2020 18:34:14 -0400
From: Roman Danyliw <rdd@cert.org>
To: "Salz, Rich" <rsalz@akamai.com>, "trans@ietf.org" <trans@ietf.org>
CC: "iesg@ietf.org" <iesg@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [Trans] Summary of DISCUSS items for draft-ietf-trans-rfc6962-bis
Thread-Index: AQHWOcSINEoBTpOxqkWyZwlkW4aJCajHJvRQgABRIID///resA==
Date: Wed, 03 Jun 2020 22:34:14 +0000
Message-ID: <43b9224f00804a76b22442c19bd423a4@cert.org>
References: <0326AF38-C3C7-43D8-824F-31D0E9879564@akamai.com> <847f0ed9ec8c4dbe9233b386b1af3ef3@cert.org> <D46A9200-7A27-48B2-B8B0-9F624F111A14@akamai.com>
In-Reply-To: <D46A9200-7A27-48B2-B8B0-9F624F111A14@akamai.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.64.202.162]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/trans/imIbE78L9V64D8b9gwBiDeVuTh4>
Subject: Re: [Trans] Summary of DISCUSS items for draft-ietf-trans-rfc6962-bis
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: Wed, 03 Jun 2020 22:34:29 -0000

Hi Rich!

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Salz, Rich <rsalz@akamai.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, June 3, 2020 5:25 PM
> To: Roman Danyliw <rdd@cert.org>; trans@ietf.org
> Cc: iesg@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [Trans] Summary of DISCUSS items for draft-ietf-trans-rfc6962-bis
> 
> 
> >    We can't publish it without clearing the final two discusses.
> 
> Then tell the two IESG folks to just clear their discuss and let this "we're trying
> to die" group publish their EXPERIMENTAL document.

[snip]

Yes, this document has been under review for quite some time.  Nevertheless, the above proposed strategy isn't the resolution process.  The feedback provided by the respective ADs in their discuss ballots needs a response (to Ben; and previously Alexey and now Murray) if the document is to progress.  There were 5 discusses on the document originally.  In my review of the history, where iteration occurred/text edits were made, the discusses positions were cleared (3 of those 5; Alissa, Mirja, Adam).

If edits in -32, -33, -34 address an open discussion position, it would be helpful to point that out.  I didn't see that in my review.  Likewise, if there is a need to "discuss the discuss", by all means, let's have that conversation.  FWIW, I added the needed YES ballot after the previous AD's YES timed out to let this document proceed, but I support the current open discusses.

Regards,
Roman

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email