Hi Toerless,
Sorry for the delay. Thanks for proposing an update. I will action this.
I propose tweaking the text slightly to:
and led to the creation of the IETF ANIMA working group, which finished
standardizing the first phase of an Autonomic Networking Infrastructure
(ANI) in 2021. This inc
From: netmod on behalf of Michael Richardson
Sent: 05 July 2021 21:40
Randy Presuhn wrote:
> In ltru the I-Ds contained both material for publication
> in the RFC as well as a *massive* amount of material for
> population of the IANA language tag registry. We needed
> it in I-
From: netmod on behalf of Michael Richardson
Sent: 05 July 2021 21:40
Randy Presuhn wrote:
> In ltru the I-Ds contained both material for publication
> in the RFC as well as a *massive* amount of material for
> population of the IANA language tag registry. We needed
> it in I-
Sheng Jiang wrote:
> However, with my chair hat on, I am a little bit concern regarding to
> whether we have enough expertise to do this well within ANIMA WG. By
> the definition of ANIMA, we are focusing on autonomic procedures in
> network operation and management. I am not sure
Hi, if David von Oheimb is correct that we've gotten use this
Type=SpecificValue for the CSRATTRS wrong, then this certainly affects
RFC8994, which requires that the pledge enroll with a specific otherName,
allocated by the Registrar.
I don't think that we ever got reliably to /san when interoper
In section 5.1 of RFC8995, we say:
> Use of TLS 1.3 (or newer) is encouraged. TLS 1.2 or newer is
> REQUIRED on the Pledge side. TLS 1.3 (or newer) SHOULD be available
> on the Registrar server interface, and the Registrar client
> interface, but TLS 1.2 MAY be used. TLS 1.3 (or newer)
Hi -
From: netmod on behalf of Michael Richardson
Sent: 05 July 2021 21:40
Randy Presuhn wrote:
> In ltru the I-Ds contained both material for publication
> in the RFC as well as a *massive* amount of material for
> population of the IANA language tag registry. We needed
> LAMPS chairs: can we have ten minutes for this discussion on the Thursday
> Session III meeting at IETF111?
> The Monday Session II is conflicted with ANIMA.
>
> I'm gonna voluntold Eliot to lead this discussion :-)
Yes, I'll add it.
Russ
_
So voluntold.
On 06.07.21 20:44, Russ Housley wrote:
LAMPS chairs: can we have ten minutes for this discussion on the Thursday
Session III meeting at IETF111?
The Monday Session II is conflicted with ANIMA.
I'm gonna voluntold Eliot to lead this discussion :-)
Yes, I'll add it.
> >I am not sure whether we can get
> > enough reviewers to guarantee the quality of this type of format
> > definition.
I think we have a way to do that, which is to ask both Gen-ART and the
Security area for early reviews, right after adoption. This is a problem
for many WGs when they touch a se
below..
On 07-Jul-21 05:15, Michael Richardson wrote:
>
> In section 5.1 of RFC8995, we say:
>
>> Use of TLS 1.3 (or newer) is encouraged. TLS 1.2 or newer is
>> REQUIRED on the Pledge side. TLS 1.3 (or newer) SHOULD be available
>> on the Registrar server interface, and the Registrar cl
11 matches
Mail list logo
