IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Uta] wrt draft-ietf-uta-email-tls-certs

Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org> Tue, 09 February 2016 02:12 UTC

Return-Path: <barryleiba.mailing.lists@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: uta@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: uta@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7600E1B3EE3; Mon, 8 Feb 2016 18:12:10 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.278
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.278 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=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 B79-B8vGZLkv; Mon, 8 Feb 2016 18:12:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-io0-x233.google.com (mail-io0-x233.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c06::233]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9AAC51B33AC; Mon, 8 Feb 2016 18:12:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-io0-x233.google.com with SMTP id d63so4143737ioj.2; Mon, 08 Feb 2016 18:12:09 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject :from:to:cc:content-type; bh=5XEZ+jMvVCr4Viy0yEuaIbBoCBR3q3VZ5C1uAD0eZdM=; b=N67ugd3Ul05ZVzLI6ON49Ec47Rq1laa8NUyla71iZOBNY2O7w8SDwrNdsmDIMry0rz 3wdxKRqYjabMnNN8wCseAhzGVlxgVdDPrhQOg+AECGifU34ziVsuaQphPMqE4mKxk6P+ CiX5NDJpXfJSjPeKpURe3rkA9344cXtyMj/tgd4E3KFbT5/7ESpHb/AiwWk/0Asminhc 7d+IYkeDJzD6vNN/NdaZs85rRLw1yQk6u/E6jRpicoWBVFwWd3ckI/ZxR0zAOztwujGl D1LWqTds2D4w/BabOr+VnYCVyv2RBmPSdzmvFz4vJ7wdKFTKcWvJlRvJbh8xGPttucaH t+Ew==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=5XEZ+jMvVCr4Viy0yEuaIbBoCBR3q3VZ5C1uAD0eZdM=; b=I4JN6nJYgivEUFseKR23qxdIL6zAaQb/8rAVQ3yAAI0QBw7z2JYeu2Br6qcAadY3sQ 25uyad2F1Bh78jJQYqdcV1zzuKniI/yTedm0e8Xa6NyaRjEOunTvIDPjgLS43ucNIagE mzPCNlihgahEm5PoEwhhPqm5mRvFAKE3M44HmJaS2f9DsjZRt/H5LL/i4H3bEpqOuYn9 WvVTCuok5PYAeMwCW686BYoXpns7H2MbzfZ6KGS5SGvx9/t99IavP3M5wEQeS/tpEFNf 4XRazNOOk8j16em7WvWuiU5HJlrPuJdadgkINKq6W8PFOQAn1vdupgoy+A9/ADwDalaV 3SOw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AG10YOS31G3rGn0jGF7ZsrBHCRkTkuUO8+B0tF0CP2lH+vnKvyIFfcDutwqdePJhKzYNJKy2jbF9Axnmz8AwnA==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.107.19.193 with SMTP id 62mr35223824iot.41.1454983928965; Mon, 08 Feb 2016 18:12:08 -0800 (PST)
Sender: barryleiba.mailing.lists@gmail.com
Received: by 10.107.184.195 with HTTP; Mon, 8 Feb 2016 18:12:08 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <56B92E22.4040307@KingsMountain.com>
References: <56B92E22.4040307@KingsMountain.com>
Date: Mon, 08 Feb 2016 21:12:08 -0500
X-Google-Sender-Auth: 9C-ZwdWdIsA1DL1fZpA_Wfg9bB8
Message-ID: <CAC4RtVBQyuUwyM9Y3oOvDiHQnTWGnOy-nyZtLNb3htUVmduoJA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>
To: =JeffH <Jeff.Hodges@kingsmountain.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/uta/8540NXCcpWd9xN7H4mEnvH4GtAk>
Cc: uta@ietf.org, uta-chairs@ietf.org, draft-ietf-uta-email-tls-certs@ietf.org, IETF Discussion List <ietf@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Uta] wrt draft-ietf-uta-email-tls-certs
X-BeenThere: uta@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: UTA working group mailing list <uta.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/uta>, <mailto:uta-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/uta/>
List-Post: <mailto:uta@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:uta-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/uta>, <mailto:uta-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 09 Feb 2016 02:12:10 -0000

> This seems to me to be clearly "updating" or "profiling" RFC6125 normative
> language, in the specific email use case.

Profiling it for email, yes.  Why should that make it *update* the
document that specifies the general process?  Profiles need to
normatively reference what they profile, but not the other way 'round.

Barry

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email