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?
> -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
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
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
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
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
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
[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
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
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, 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
11 matches
Mail list logo
