Re: [Uri-review] PKCS#11 URI registration request review

Jan Pechanec <jan.pechanec@oracle.com> Sat, 09 February 2013 01:27 UTC

Return-Path: <jan.pechanec@oracle.com>
X-Original-To: uri-review@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: uri-review@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 78F5821F89B5 for <uri-review@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 8 Feb 2013 17:27:59 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.598
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id dUdc7vvu6gDn for <uri-review@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 8 Feb 2013 17:27:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: from userp1040.oracle.com (userp1040.oracle.com [156.151.31.81]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D943E21F890F for <uri-review@ietf.org>; Fri, 8 Feb 2013 17:27:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: from acsinet22.oracle.com (acsinet22.oracle.com [141.146.126.238]) by userp1040.oracle.com (Sentrion-MTA-4.3.1/Sentrion-MTA-4.3.1) with ESMTP id r191Rv3N001585 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK) for <uri-review@ietf.org>; Sat, 9 Feb 2013 01:27:58 GMT
Received: from acsmt358.oracle.com (acsmt358.oracle.com [141.146.40.158]) by acsinet22.oracle.com (8.14.4+Sun/8.14.4) with ESMTP id r191Rv6m011346 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for <uri-review@ietf.org>; Sat, 9 Feb 2013 01:27:57 GMT
Received: from abhmt101.oracle.com (abhmt101.oracle.com [141.146.116.53]) by acsmt358.oracle.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id r191RuTq013581 for <uri-review@ietf.org>; Fri, 8 Feb 2013 19:27:56 -0600
Received: from rejewski.us.oracle.com (/10.132.148.23) by default (Oracle Beehive Gateway v4.0) with ESMTP ; Fri, 08 Feb 2013 17:27:56 -0800
Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2013 17:28:59 -0800 (PST)
From: Jan Pechanec <jan.pechanec@oracle.com>
X-X-Sender: jpechane@rejewski
To: uri-review@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <alpine.GSO.2.00.1301261430001.28908@rejewski>
Message-ID: <alpine.GSO.2.00.1302081722560.7401@rejewski>
References: <alpine.GSO.2.00.1301261430001.28908@rejewski>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (GSO 1167 2008-08-23)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
X-Source-IP: acsinet22.oracle.com [141.146.126.238]
Cc: Darren.Moffat@oracle.com
Subject: Re: [Uri-review] PKCS#11 URI registration request review
X-BeenThere: uri-review@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Proposed URI Schemes <uri-review.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/uri-review>, <mailto:uri-review-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/uri-review>
List-Post: <mailto:uri-review@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:uri-review-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/uri-review>, <mailto:uri-review-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 09 Feb 2013 01:27:59 -0000

On Sat, 26 Jan 2013, Jan Pechanec wrote:

	hi, the section 5.2 of RFC 4395 notes "Allow a reasonable time 
for discussion and comments. Four weeks is reasonable for a permanent 
registration requests."

	I will wait for two more weeks if there is any feedback (which 
would be greatly appreciated) to make it 4 weeks in total, and if there 
is none I will continue with the next step, which is the submission to 
iana@iana.org.

	regards, Jan.

>	hello,
>
>	in accordance with section "5.2. Registration Procedures" of RFC 
>4395 "Guidelines and Registration Procedures for New URI Schemes", I 
>respectfully request a review for our planned permanent registration 
>request of the PKCS#11 URI as specified in the following I-D:
>
>	http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-pechanec-pkcs11uri-08
>
>	the registration template is attached.
>
>	best regards, Jan Pechanec
>
>

-- 
Jan Pechanec
http://blogs.oracle.com/janp