Re: [sidr] WGLC: draft-ietf-sidr-rpsl-sig - End Jul 02 2015

The authors submitted a revision https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-sidr-rpsl-sig-08 last week. It would be awesome to receive confirmation from the commenters that their comments have been adequately addressed. If no confirmations are received, the chairs will make their own determination.

Re: [sidr] WGLC: draft-ietf-sidr-rpsl-sig - End Jul 02 2015

Chris, Since I was just a person offering suggested edits, I presume this message is really directed to the doc authors, right? Steve Howdy! there was a flurry of activity, some comments that seemed useful I didn't see an update to the doc though yet? It's cool if that's waiting in the w

Re: [sidr] WGLC: draft-ietf-sidr-rpsl-sig - End Jul 02 2015

thanks Brian, Just a couple of minor pickups left : … >> so I think we are talking past each other. Lewt me try to explain myself >> with a simply question >> >> How should I represent the following ranges of number resources in a >> canonical format according to this draft? > > Given the c

Re: [sidr] WGLC: draft-ietf-sidr-rpsl-sig - End Jul 02 2015

Hi Geoff, Sorry for the delay. These are useful comments and I have some responses in-line... On 6/25/15 7:57 PM, Geoff Huston wrote: > Thanks for the responses Brian. Some followup responses interleaved with your > text follow. > > > >> Thanks for the review. Some responses in-line.

Re: [sidr] WGLC: draft-ietf-sidr-rpsl-sig - End Jul 02 2015

Thanks for the responses Brian. Some followup responses interleaved with your text follow. > Thanks for the review. Some responses in-line... > > > On 6/23/15 10:26 PM, Geoff Huston wrote: >> >> Bullet 4 of this list looks confused >> >> * Date and time fields MUST be converted to 64-b

Re: [sidr] WGLC: draft-ietf-sidr-rpsl-sig - End Jul 02 2015

Hi Geoff, Thanks for the review. Some responses in-line... On 6/23/15 10:26 PM, Geoff Huston wrote: > section 3.1, bullet 4 - s/notaion/notation/ Will fix. > > Bullet 4 of this list looks confused > > * Date and time fields MUST be converted to 64-bit NTP Timestamp Format > [RFC5905].

Re: [sidr] WGLC: draft-ietf-sidr-rpsl-sig - End Jul 02 2015

section 3.1, bullet 4 - s/notaion/notation/ Bullet 4 of this list looks confused * Date and time fields MUST be converted to 64-bit NTP Timestamp Format [RFC5905]. thats a binary value, 32 bits of seconds since epoch and 32 bitss of fractions - right? Does this also mean that the Era i

Re: [sidr] WGLC: draft-ietf-sidr-rpsl-sig - End Jul 02 2015

section 3.1, bullet 4 - s/notaion/notation/Bullet 4 of this list looks confused* Date and time fields MUST be converted to 64-bit NTP Timestamp Format [RFC5905]. thats a binary value, 32 bits of seconds since epoch and 32 bitss of fractions - right? Does this also mean that the Era is 1 Jan

Re: [sidr] WGLC: draft-ietf-sidr-rpsl-sig - End Jul 02 2015

section 3.1, bullet 4 - s/notaion/notation/ Bullet 4 of this list looks confused * Date and time fields MUST be converted to 64-bit NTP Timestamp Format [RFC5905]. thats a binary value, 32 bits of seconds since epoch and 32 bitss of fractions - right? Does this also mean that the Era

[sidr] WGLC: draft-ietf-sidr-rpsl-sig - End Jul 02 2015

Howdy WG Folks, Today is your day! we start a WGLC for: draft-ietf-sidr-rpsl-sig Abstract: "This document describes a method to allow parties to electronically sign RPSL-like objects and validate such electronic signatures. This