Hello, Warren
Just uploaded the 12th version. The only change is status of GOST R
34.11-94 -- DEPRECATED.
--
Boris
23.10.2022 18:20, Warren Kumari пишет:
On Fri, Oct 21, 2022 at 2:54 PM, Warren Kumari wrote:
On Wed, Oct 19, 2022 at 12:41 PM, Warren Kumari
On Fri, Oct 21, 2022 at 2:54 PM, Warren Kumari wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 19, 2022 at 12:41 PM, Warren Kumari wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Oct 19, 2022 at 7:22 AM, Paul Hoffman
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Oct 18, 2022, at 7:58 AM, Ron Even wrote:
>>>
>>> 1. whis is this an informational RFC and not a standard track
On Wed, Oct 19, 2022 at 12:41 PM, Warren Kumari wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 19, 2022 at 7:22 AM, Paul Hoffman
> wrote:
>
>> On Oct 18, 2022, at 7:58 AM, Ron Even wrote:
>>
>> 1. whis is this an informational RFC and not a standard track RFC.
>>
>> That's a reasonable question with a simple answer:
On Wed, Oct 19, 2022 at 7:22 AM, Paul Hoffman
wrote:
> On Oct 18, 2022, at 7:58 AM, Ron Even wrote:
>
> 1. whis is this an informational RFC and not a standard track RFC.
>
> That's a reasonable question with a simple answer: because the WG changed
> its mind on what the status of this protocol
I am OK with the WG consensus just wanted to make sure that the
maturity level change was considered.
as for the IANA section I am sure that you will update it to clarify what
should be done by IANA
Roni Even
On Wed, Oct 19, 2022 at 6:27 PM Tim Wicinski wrote:
>
> I agree with Warren on this,
I agree with Warren on this, as the chair he and I had several discussions
sorting out this situation,
and Mr Hoffman did the work in cleaning up the IANA registrations.
tim
On Wed, Oct 19, 2022 at 11:13 AM Warren Kumari wrote:
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Oct 19, 2022 at 7:22 AM, Paul Hoffman
>
On Wed, Oct 19, 2022 at 7:22 AM, Paul Hoffman
wrote:
> On Oct 18, 2022, at 7:58 AM, Ron Even wrote:
>
> 1. whis is this an informational RFC and not a standard track RFC.
>
> That's a reasonable question with a simple answer: because the WG changed
> its mind on what the status of this protocol
On Oct 18, 2022, at 7:58 AM, Ron Even wrote:
> 1. whis is this an informational RFC and not a standard track RFC.
That's a reasonable question with a simple answer: because the WG changed its
mind on what the status of this protocol should be. RFC 5933 describes a
national standard that is
