[websec] fyi: IETF conflict review results for draft-secure-cookie-session-protocol

=JeffH <Jeff.Hodges@KingsMountain.com> Thu, 06 December 2012 16:06 UTC

Return-Path: <Jeff.Hodges@KingsMountain.com>
X-Original-To: websec@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: websec@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4824D21F8582 for <websec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 6 Dec 2012 08:06:41 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.265
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.265 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 XcDj5+AnQtIb for <websec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 6 Dec 2012 08:06:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: from oproxy7-pub.bluehost.com (oproxy7-pub.bluehost.com [67.222.55.9]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 4AFF221F85B2 for <websec@ietf.org>; Thu, 6 Dec 2012 08:06:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: (qmail 20974 invoked by uid 0); 6 Dec 2012 16:06:18 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO box514.bluehost.com) (74.220.219.114) by oproxy7.bluehost.com with SMTP; 6 Dec 2012 16:06:18 -0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=kingsmountain.com; s=default; h=Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:Subject:To:MIME-Version:From:Date:Message-ID; bh=J32l3+TGlhjK9n5rYIrEnbsEi9H/sIAOPZhsYmAvlx4=; b=AZq3X7tnvUFGqnZedTktQhEjPQ00j02sumngQk8kZfsyr+7lYBSdE/Figa5AjqGlZWkvWe01HtyTfXpUHh/lh+ZefIt9Mf7Q6DuBym/ceVTWng3IsOzuvLdPqAQ62WJ2;
Received: from [216.113.168.128] (port=26266 helo=[10.244.137.210]) by box514.bluehost.com with esmtpsa (TLSv1:CAMELLIA256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from <Jeff.Hodges@KingsMountain.com>) id 1Tgdxp-0005qY-MJ; Thu, 06 Dec 2012 09:06:17 -0700
Message-ID: <50C0C278.7050302@KingsMountain.com>
Date: Thu, 06 Dec 2012 08:06:16 -0800
From: =JeffH <Jeff.Hodges@KingsMountain.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/17.0 Thunderbird/17.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: HTTP State <http-state@ietf.org>, IETF WebSec WG <websec@ietf.org>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, Apps Discuss <apps-discuss@ietf.org>, IETF oauth WG <oauth@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Identified-User: {11025:box514.bluehost.com:kingsmou:kingsmountain.com} {sentby:smtp auth 216.113.168.128 authed with jeff.hodges+kingsmountain.com}
Subject: [websec] fyi: IETF conflict review results for draft-secure-cookie-session-protocol
X-BeenThere: websec@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Web Application Security Minus Authentication and Transport <websec.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/websec>, <mailto:websec-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/websec>
List-Post: <mailto:websec@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:websec-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/websec>, <mailto:websec-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 06 Dec 2012 16:06:41 -0000

[ I was nosing around and noticed this relatively recent decision, it didn't 
appear to have been fwd'd to these lists. fyi/fwiw... ]


Subject: Results of IETF-conflict review for
	draft-secure-cookie-session-protocol-08
From: The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org>
Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2012 14:46:52 -0800
To: "Nevil Brownlee" <rfc-ise@rfc-editor.org>rg>,
	draft-secure-cookie-session-protocol@tools.ietf.org
Cc: iana@iana.org, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>rg>, ietf-announce@ietf.org

The IESG has completed a review of
draft-secure-cookie-session-protocol-08 consistent with RFC5742.


The IESG has no problem with the publication of 'SCS: Secure Cookie
Sessions for HTTP' <draft-secure-cookie-session-protocol-08.txt> as an
Informational RFC.


The IESG has concluded that this work is related to IETF work done in the
websec and httpbis working groups, but this relationship does not prevent
publishing.

The IESG would also like the RFC-Editor to review the comments in the
datatracker related to this document and determine whether or not they
merit incorporation into the document. Comments may exist in both the
ballot and the history log.

The IESG review is documented at:
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/conflict-review-secure-cookie-session-protocol/

A URL of the reviewed Internet Draft is:
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-secure-cookie-session-protocol/

The process for such documents is described at
http://www.rfc-editor.org/indsubs.html

Thank you,

The IESG Secretary

###

IETF conflict review for draft-secure-cookie-session-protocol
[conflict-review-secure-cookie-session-protocol-00]

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/conflict-review-secure-cookie-session-protocol/


Conflict Review State:		Approved No Problem - announcement sent

Shepherding AD: 		Barry Leiba

Last updated:			2012-11-19


Conflict Review for draft-secure-cookie-session-protocol-09

The IESG has concluded that this work is related to IETF work done in the
websec and httpbis working groups, but this relationship does not prevent
publishing.


###