howdy! it's past 10/25, so... I think despite seeing only 2 folk reply I
think this document should move forward, so I'll send up a pub-request
shortly.

On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 11:13 PM, Sriram, Kotikalapudi (Fed) <
kotikalapudi.sri...@nist.gov> wrote:

> I read the draft once again. I support publication.
>
> Found a minor typo in the last paragraph on p.15 (can be dealt with during
> RFC editor review process):
> s/the loss of on IP address prefix from the VRS-IP/the loss of one IP
> address prefix from the VRS-IP/
>
> Sriram
>
> ________________________________________
> From: sidr <sidr-boun...@ietf.org> on behalf of Chris Morrow <
> morr...@ops-netman.net>
> Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2016 10:08 AM
> To: sidr@ietf.org; sidr-cha...@ietf.org; sidr-...@ietf.org
> Subject: [sidr] WGLC - draft-ietf-sidr-rpki-validation-reconsidered -
> ends      10/25/2016
>
> Howdy WG folks!
> The authors of:
>   draft-ietf-sidr-rpki-validation-reconsidered
>
> believe they have addressed all inflight concerns/comments, the
> request is to WGLC this, consider it's place in the world and if
> appropriate pass this document along to the IESG for publication.
>
> The abstract for this draft is:
>   "This document proposes an update to the certificate validation
>    procedure specified in RFC 6487 that reduces aspects of operational
>    fragility in the management of certificates in the RPKI, while
>    retaining essential security features."
>
> Let's have a read through, consider and reply with your thoughts please,
> this WGLC is set to expire: 10/25/2016 - October 25, 2016.
>
> thanks for reading/replying/thinking!
> -chris
> co-chair-persona
>
> _______________________________________________
> sidr mailing list
> sidr@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
>
> _______________________________________________
> sidr mailing list
> sidr@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
>
_______________________________________________
sidr mailing list
sidr@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr

Reply via email to