On Wed, 2 Jan 2019, Gould, James wrote:
To remove any concerns related to the inclusion of VSP policy in
draft-ietf-regext-verificationcode, the sentence " The VSP MUST store the proof of
verification and the generated verification code; and MAY store the verified data."
can be removed. If th
John,
To remove any concerns related to the inclusion of VSP policy in
draft-ietf-regext-verificationcode, the sentence " The VSP MUST store the proof
of verification and the generated verification code; and MAY store the verified
data." can be removed. If there are no objections to the remova
On Wed, 2 Jan 2019, Adam Roach wrote:
I don't understand why. The code is a signed token. Imagine the registry
goes back to the signer asks about token 123-foo666 and the answer is
"We're the Ministry, we signed it, of course it's valid. The details are
secret."
While that would not be m
[as an individual]
On 1/2/19 12:10 PM, John R Levine wrote:
The 2119 words MUST and MAY are used to signify requirements;
although that does imply interoperability as well. This statement is
associated with making the verification code functional, since the
verification code represents a sign
Thanks Scott, for your question. I have also gotten a few private
questions about details of how “selections” will be interpreted and
acted upon. Rather than respond to your specific question let me make a
general statement that I have made privately to a few folks.
Antoin and I are not tryi
The 2119 words MUST and MAY are used to signify requirements; although
that does imply interoperability as well. This statement is associated
with making the verification code functional, since the verification
code represents a signed and typed verification pointer, it must point
to something
John,
The 2119 words MUST and MAY are used to signify requirements; although that
does imply interoperability as well. This statement is associated with making
the verification code functional, since the verification code represents a
signed and typed verification pointer, it must point to som
Gurshabad,
For the defined purpose of draft-ietf-regext-verificationcode, the VSP needs to
be defined as an entity, but the VSP's verification process is not defined and
is out-of-scope. The use of examples in an IETF draft does not classify as
guidance. The only obligation of the VSP within
Hi all,
I strongly support the inclusion of text in the draft.
I think the differentiations that are being made here between 'technical' and
'policy', and 'technical' and 'judicial' here are merely rhetorical. No clear
definition of the either terms and/or the difference have been offered thus
> -Original Message-
> From: regext On Behalf Of James Galvin
> Sent: Friday, December 21, 2018 11:13 AM
> To: Registration Protocols Extensions
> Subject: [EXTERNAL] [regext] DOODLE: select your documents
>
> Please take the time to select the documents you support for advancement
> in t
Hello,
On 12/26/18 15:32, Gould, James wrote:
> Do others in the working group believe that either the verification process
> of the VSP is in scope based on the current wording of the draft or that a
> consideration section can cover something that is outside the defined scope
> of the draft?
11 matches
Mail list logo
