Does this not follow the 2 week time period for notification of a BoF?
Thank you,
Kathleen
On Fri, Jun 10, 2022 at 1:22 PM Ira McDonald
wrote:
> Hi Ned,
>
> No - Henk meant IETF 113 - this is not a BoF at IETF 114 in July - this is
> a BoF on next Thursday, that was dispatched as such at IETF 1
Greetings!
The working group last call for
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-rats-uccs/
begins now and will run for 4 weeks per discussion at the IETF 117 meeting.
Review requests are also requested from COSE working group members. Last
call ends 9/23/2023.
There are a few remaining que
Hello,
Thank you all for your work on draft-ietf-cose-msg. I mainly have
nits to fix in my comments, which is bound to happen with such a long
draft. Sorry for the time it took to turn this review around.
I haven't looked at the shepherd report yet, but it will need to
include any remaining dow
Hi Jim,
Thanks for the very quick response! Inline.
On Sat, Sep 3, 2016 at 5:59 PM, Jim Schaad wrote:
>
>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: COSE [mailto:cose-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Kathleen Moriarty
>> Sent: Friday, September 02, 2016 7:58 PM
>> To: c
On Sat, Sep 3, 2016 at 6:58 PM, Jim Schaad wrote:
>> Section 16.2
>>
>> I think it's a little confusing to state the registry values require expert
>> review,
>> then buried in the 'label' description say it can be specification required.
>> Wouldn't it be more clear to state that a dependency ex
On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 2:39 PM, Jim Schaad wrote:
>
>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: COSE [mailto:cose-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Kathleen Moriarty
>> Sent: Tuesday, September 06, 2016 11:01 AM
>> To: Jim Schaad
>> Cc: cose@ietf.org
>> Subjec
n Sep 6, 2016, at 6:10 PM, Jim Schaad wrote:
>>>>
>>>> So something along the lines of this?
>>>>
>>>> The registry is to be created as Expert Review Required. There are
>>>> additional requirements for sub-ranges of values,
&g
I'll leave it on this weeks call since this is the only outstanding
issue. We can sort through what to do with it so we don't have to
have it on a telecjat again.
Thanks,
Kathleen
On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 7:55 AM, wrote:
> We've gotten enough questions on this that I'm thinking the best course
On Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at 11:12 AM, Stephen Farrell wrote:
>
> Hiya,
>
> On 26/10/16 16:06, Justin Richer wrote:
> > Hi Stephen,
> >
> > Sorry for the delay on answering #2 and #6 below. After researching
> > the list archives and issue tracker, neither Kepeng nor I can find
> > discussion on eithe
Thank you, Stephen. Please chime in if you were one to comment recently.
I will check through comments tomorrow and will work with the shepherd
asking them to review outstanding comments as well as to be careful in
moving this document forward.
Best regards,
Kathleen
On Tue, Nov 22, 2016 at 5:14
Just going back through messages to check on things and noticed a question
for me...
On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 1:39 AM, Jim Schaad wrote:
> Changes are in https://github.com/cose-wg/cose-spec/pull/181
>
>
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: COSE [mailto:cose-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of B
Hello,
Thank you very much to the chairs, editors, and contributors to the COSE
working group for working together to quickly achieve the goals set forth
in the charter and bringing the WG to a close! draft-ietf-cose-msg was
just approved for publication thanks to your hard work. I'll request
cl
n't think so.
>
Timing is everything :-) We can re-open the WG with a change in charter if
that is the desired option for the WG. The chairs can help figure out if
there is enough momentum to keep the group open/re-open for this draft.
Thanks,
Kathleen
>
>
> See Kathleen's
If the work can be done in a WG, that is preferred.
On Mon, Jan 9, 2017 at 2:38 PM, Justin Richer wrote:
> +1 on the CURDLE question.
>
> -- Justin
>
>
>
> On 1/9/2017 1:13 AM, Jim Schaad wrote:
>
>> I just figure out that I sent this to the wrong list - maybe the names are
>> too close togethe
Hello, Yuriy.
Once you have a draft ready, please start by posting it here for review. The
step after that will be to get it published. You can ask an Area Director to
sponsor it and have it published as an individual draft or can also present it
at SecDispatch and direction for next steps sh
I support this as I believe it spurred from some messages from me to Jim.
Thank you for starting the work.
Best regards,
Kathleen
Sent from my mobile device
> On Feb 25, 2019, at 7:38 PM, Jim Schaad wrote:
>
> A version of what this document would look like can be found here
> https://tool
Hi Jim,
Thanks for your work on this draft! I have a few editorial suggestions:
Section 2.1 - Deprecated is spelled incorrectly in several places,
including the table.
Section 2.3 - Typo
OLD:
The SHA-3 hash algorithms have a significantly different structure
than the SHA-3 hash algorithms.
Replying to Jim as Carsten snipped too much :-)
On Mon, Apr 1, 2019 at 1:50 PM Jim Schaad wrote:
>
>
>
>
> *From:* COSE *On Behalf Of *Kathleen Moriarty
> *Sent:* Monday, April 1, 2019 9:56 AM
> *To:* cose
> *Subject:* [COSE] Draft review
> https://tools.ietf.or
>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: COSE [mailto:cose-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Kathleen Moriarty
>> Sent: Tuesday, September 06, 2016 12:22 PM
>> To: Jim Schaad
>> Cc: cose@ietf.org
>> Subject: Re: [COSE] AD review of draft-ietf-cose-msg
>>
>
>>> So something along the lines of this?
>>>
>>> The registry is to be created as Expert Review Required. There are
>>> additional requirements for sub-ranges of values,
>>
>>> where a specification may also be necessary. Expert review gu
Thank you, Jim for staying on top of the responses.
Kathleen
Please excuse typos, sent from handheld device
> On Sep 28, 2016, at 2:52 AM, Jim Schaad wrote:
>
> This revision deals with the comments in the secdir review.
>
> Additional comments have come in since then, hopefully an update
We've gotten enough questions on this that I'm thinking the best course of
action is to make a change and put it back through last call. The change could
be to make the reference normative and wait on the publication of CDDL (in the
editors queue) or to fully specify the format in this draft.
Thank you, Jim. I'll double check before you post the next version.
Kathleen
Please excuse typos, sent from handheld device
> On Oct 10, 2016, at 11:27 PM, Jim Schaad wrote:
>
> I have just published a draft -20 of the document.
>
> I believe that this document addresses all of the issues
23 matches
Mail list logo
