[Trans] One registry name update? was Re: Publication has been requested for draft-ietf-trans-rfc6962-bis-39
Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca> Fri, 04 June 2021 00:43 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 0AAAE3A211A; Thu, 3 Jun 2021 17:43:19 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.096
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.096 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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, 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 i4kSKlgpV6NL; Thu, 3 Jun 2021 17:43:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx.nohats.ca (mx.nohats.ca [IPv6:2a03:6000:1004:1::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 7F13B3A2116; Thu, 3 Jun 2021 17:43:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by mx.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4Fx3s53pdfzKF7; Fri, 4 Jun 2021 02:43:05 +0200 (CEST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=nohats.ca; s=default; t=1622767385; bh=jzrTqWqSd/6P8i3/Yfv5sS7F2EKJXQFxos+XLfDvHfE=; h=Date:From:To:cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References; b=n5r8KmQKjllo3FpoK1zAgAFZ6oOLvwI/h5RIo8PcZM5NB2kl7w6Ukzb5iAD3VochZ PpDnOWQY2CSMa7dZdqPHV7q0MheRz8RaUx/2IIDIWA0B+InymZVYXUjyUe9qoAUj6L k0yXYdv+Vtx6GWNcVpx0gnQJ+DvR46MTMoClUaZ4=
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 OlqE6J2qYH9W; Fri, 4 Jun 2021 02:43:04 +0200 (CEST)
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; Fri, 4 Jun 2021 02:43:03 +0200 (CEST)
Received: by bofh.nohats.ca (Postfix, from userid 1000) id B1A687C68F; Thu, 3 Jun 2021 20:43:02 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by bofh.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id AA7997C68E; Thu, 3 Jun 2021 20:43:02 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Thu, 03 Jun 2021 20:43:02 -0400
From: Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca>
To: Paul Wouters via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>
cc: Trans <trans@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <162276704678.4007.18417307977845588960@ietfa.amsl.com>
Message-ID: <86b58ea3-77bd-ad5b-341-5668d585671c@nohats.ca>
References: <162276704678.4007.18417307977845588960@ietfa.amsl.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"; format="flowed"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/trans/kPUT47PPmgY1HcoAX9smtNm23N4>
Subject: [Trans] One registry name update? was Re: Publication has been requested for draft-ietf-trans-rfc6962-bis-39
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, 04 Jun 2021 00:43:19 -0000
On Thu, 3 Jun 2021, Paul Wouters via Datatracker wrote: > Subject: [Trans] Publication has been requested for draft-ietf-trans-rfc6962-bis-39 > Paul Wouters has requested publication of draft-ietf-trans-rfc6962-bis-39 as Experimental on behalf of the TRANS working group. Note that while updating the Shepherd's writeup, I noticed that one of our new Registry's name probably should be updated. The current name is "Log ID Registry", but none of the other names use the word "registry" in the name. I suggest that it be called "Log IDs" ? Paul
- [Trans] Publication has been requested for draft-… Paul Wouters via Datatracker
- [Trans] One registry name update? was Re: Publica… Paul Wouters
- Re: [Trans] One registry name update? was Re: Pub… Salz, Rich