specifications
with maturity level below that of Draft Standard: RFCs 3280 and 3281,
which are both Proposed Standards. This last call is intended to
gauge community support for that action.
Thanks,
Tim Polk
On Apr 27, 2009, at 9:46 PM, Nelson B Bolyard wrote:
The IESG wrote, On 2009-04-27
Alexey,
The goal of this particular exercise is to advance RFC 3852 *without*
revision, so I called out the normative references as specified in the
document: RFCs 3280 and 3281. It is true that RFC 3280 has been
obsoleted by RFC 5280, and that draft-ietf-pkix-3281update is intended
to
Good point. If we are serious about this, automating it is the only
reasonable path. I like the idea of a minimum size for automatic
submission. If it is short but really important (e.g., The AD closed
the wg.), then we can always manually submit the jabber log.
On Apr 1, 2009, at 9:48
is approved by the IESG but
delayed in deference to working group activities, I intend to request
early IANA assignment. This will permit experimental use of this
publication while the standards track publication is under development.
Thanks,
Tim Polk
group a second time. Hopefully, that set of conditions will not
come to pass.
Again, my apologies for the process failure (at least in spirit).
Thanks for
responding, and I look forward to hearing the results of the TLS WG
discussions.
Thanks,
Tim Polk
On Feb 11, 2009, at 12:33 AM, Eric
the nose off
to spite
the face.
Tim Polk
Dean Anderson
CEO
AV8 Internet, Inc
--
Av8 Internet Prepared to pay a premium for better service?
www.av8.net faster, more reliable, better service
617 344 9000
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf
is ever likely, we
need any RFC at all. Its not like these docs describe something
one couldn't easily figure out were there a need, given that
the (elegant but not especially useful) crypto has been around
for a while without finding any serious applications.
Stephen.
Tim Polk wrote:
Okay, I fat
that the WG got this one right, and I have changed the
intended status on
both documents to Informational.
Thanks,
Tim Polk
Harald wrote:
SM wrote:
At 05:37 20-10-2008, The IESG wrote:
This is a second last call for consideration of the following
document
from the S/MIME Mail Security WG
graphic
content.) Note that you will need to tweak the provided links
regardless of which version you select; there are formatting
and linewrap issues that prevent following the links automatically.
Thanks,
Tim Polk
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https
Olaf,
Thanks! That will make everyone's lives much easier.
Tim
On Oct 9, 2008, at 10:50 AM, Olaf Kolkman wrote:
There are links to a number of process flow diagrams that may
interest you.
For easy accessibility of those links see:
http://www.ntia.doc.gov/DNS/DNSSEC.html
--Olaf
compelling, I move on. In
that case, I will not
notice that a response did not occur. I suspect that other ADs
suffer from similar human
foibles.
Thanks,
Tim Polk
___
IETF mailing list
IETF@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
, that is a good overview of the process I try to
follow.
Tim Polk
___
IETF mailing list
IETF@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
I can think of an example where a minor clarification was made in
AUTH 48. The appropriate AD confirmed the
change but it still proved to be very controversial. (For the life
of me, I have *never* understood why. I have read that
sentence a thousand times, and I still don't see the problem.
at this time.
/Simon
Thanks,
Tim Polk
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
14 matches
Mail list logo
