P is also ready for Last Call
because it might be good to review both documents together. Do you
really want me to Last Call it now (and put a stake in the ground that
you've gotten it done), or do you want me to hold off for a bit? I'm
happy to proceed either way.
pr
--
Pete Resnic
eans?
Yep. This is a cross area group. Not everyone knows what the IDs are.
pr
--
Pete Resnick<http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/>
Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. - +1 (858)651-4478
___
Uta mailing list
Uta@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/uta
.
On 9/29/14 3:25 AM, Orit Levin (LCA) wrote:
Leif and I talked and we suggest to Last Call it now.
Wilco.
pr
--
Pete Resnick<http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/>
Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. - +1 (858)651-4478
___
Uta mailing list
Uta@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/uta
ar: One of the primary reasons that the term
"opportunistic encryption" was not chosen for the title of the O-S
document is because the term "opportunistic encryption" was already used
by RFC 4322 in an incompatible way. Claims that it is "yet to be
defined" are simply
.2:
It seems like the reference in the second paragraph should be to RFC 7435.
7.3:
OLD
We thus advocate strict use of forward-secrecy-only ciphers.
NEW
This document therefore advocates the strict use of
forward-secrecy-only ciphers.
7.5:
First paragraph: s/we can recommend/can be
ballot. If the editors or the shepherd
wish me to hold off, let me know in the next 24 hours.
pr
--
Pete Resnick<http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/>
Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. - +1 (858)651-4478
___
Uta mailing list
Uta@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/uta
On 2/11/15 2:26 PM, Peter Saint-Andre - &yet wrote:
On 2/11/15 1:21 PM, Pete Resnick wrote:
Looking through this rev, I only see three minor points brought up by
reviewers that don't appear (to me) to have been directly addressed:
- It was suggested that the document should updates
Pete Resnick has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-uta-tls-bcp-09: Yes
When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)
Please refer to http
ing/citing the document in
some recent discussions of other drafts.
Do you have examples?
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-paws-protocol-20#section-7
pr
--
Pete Resnick<http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/>
Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. - +1 (858)651-4478
___
On 2/17/15 3:31 PM, Peter Saint-Andre - &yet wrote:
On 2/17/15 2:11 PM, Pete Resnick wrote:
On 2/17/15 2:07 PM, Peter Saint-Andre - &yet wrote:
On 2/17/15 12:49 PM, Alissa Cooper wrote:
So my question is whether we should consider this document effectively
silent about the choice o
On 2/17/15 3:59 PM, Pete Resnick wrote:
On 2/17/15 3:31 PM, Peter Saint-Andre - &yet wrote:
Right, I was thinking of existing protocols. For new protocols, I do
think it makes sense to reference this BCP.
But that is exactly what the PAWS document does, and in fact PAWS was
asked to do s
circle back to the WG if there's an issue to address.
pr
--
Pete Resnick<http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/>
Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. - +1 (858)651-4478
___
Uta mailing list
Uta@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/uta
st, we should say something like, "OS is a work in progress;
until further notice, use this as a baseline and deviate to the
minimal extent possible."
That is significantly worse, in my view, than saying, "We're not talking
about OS here."
More tomorrow.
pr
ls we (the IETF)
expect to abide by the requirements and recommendations in this document
unless they give some serious justification for not doing so." That's
what we mean by a BCP.
pr
--
Pete Resnick<http://www.qualcomm.com/~pres
On 2/18/15 1:08 PM, Leif Johansson wrote:
18 feb 2015 kl. 19:54 skrev Pete Resnick:
On 2/18/15 5:07 AM, Leif Johansson wrote:
The idea of making best practice sorta-kinda normative makes me a bit
queasy.
Let's not forget that a BCP *is* a community consensus document. It
all of the collected changes to address all of the DISCUSS/COMMENTs
from the IESG *except* Richard's DISCUSS on 5.2. That way we'll have
clean copy, Alissa and Barry can clear their DISCUSSes, everything else
will be addressed, and we can simply figure out what should be done to
address Ri
. A separate
document with recommendations for the use of TLS with opportunistic
security is to be completed in the future."
pr
--
Pete Resnick<http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/>
Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. - +1 (858)651-4478
___
Uta mailing list
Uta@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/uta
about ec, confusion avoidance really
isn't a tenable position anymore.
If we absolutely need to clarify this small bit of terminology, we can
do that during AUTH48.
Peter
--
Pete Resnick<http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/>
Qualcomm Technologies, Inc
On 2/21/15 4:50 AM, t.p. wrote:
- Original Message -
From: "Pete Resnick"
To: "Richard Barnes"
Sent: Friday, February 20, 2015 8:22 PM
On 2/20/15 1:43 PM, Richard Barnes wrote:
On Fri, Feb 20, 2015 at 2:12 PM, Stephen Farrell
mailto:stephen.farr...@cs.tcd.ie>
19 matches
Mail list logo
