From nobody Fri Dec 1 15:47:52 2017 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dispatch@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dispatch@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DB765126D0C for ; Fri, 1 Dec 2017 15:47:49 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.7 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=drkurt.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id nvJQss0z10-E for ; Fri, 1 Dec 2017 15:47:47 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-lf0-x22f.google.com (mail-lf0-x22f.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c07::22f]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1A9AB124234 for ; Fri, 1 Dec 2017 15:47:47 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-lf0-x22f.google.com with SMTP id e137so13465050lfg.5 for ; Fri, 01 Dec 2017 15:47:47 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=drkurt.com; s=20130612; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id :subject:to; bh=kwl5BgxoAvGs9bhK+EAgWrV8miYrIHMabisO/00MysA=; b=Dw+m7uEntkWtxgTHXBmsZKI4niIR+xQlVvkPijsMbL3MlOdhmqOmsiTi76dQ/wPY80 YIpu4sYX88UxGJw4e7qoYvEK3AMqM/OI3PdFkuMBlucyCyp3AGdbvsTqLvRIKRDqu88k h5vL7+vPXU2Omm3+srtCvlrFiGQovpJeR1yro= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from :date:message-id:subject:to; bh=kwl5BgxoAvGs9bhK+EAgWrV8miYrIHMabisO/00MysA=; b=mTLbR3oyjxbnOS0b9EnVAL2nihz/Tj+9EYfTuDvyc6xzuLc7yaCNY816tdfyCmR/+f faTF6TKEcceEclFE/SDDdKxNv2AcG0OvM/89JyEDlRxGxHtf7hPmy8dAo9ba9OeEJLmW U5bwwh0ZQv+tX9WHoPnPenUMldZ0Eos26lI9AzBocZPGU9GJbzLYQCGejcNPmZeB5ELv Qruy8TyjwcQx6tLqYnZy2ntFzjh3YDRvpVsXSPFyEDgCjeGoit7O5HMBtVs/zP8ZtkK6 cvI0mykGf9VVyeikeccifsg+NV2ZnGPvIWzVD+7RiiFgCVPR524L0/1BZs4q/2aVsbOR be0A== X-Gm-Message-State: AJaThX45bAijQMGJsgP62NyNhN64fDHiXiI1qhTZ5jFAYH57YHRh8Cfz FPRuLyddfwVX7JtTPm8XfOMQ5XCuDoxSFCklCk587ZHr X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGs4zMYoifZoMCJ7frl4HC/J2t2ZG9t6lifwoRHmU5EQlMlFUtS8Gh4ahoTnKNDqOQqWx3Bf7JOw3fA+//IOfJpYK9I= X-Received: by 10.46.95.15 with SMTP id t15mr6363399ljb.2.1512172065195; Fri, 01 Dec 2017 15:47:45 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: kurta@drkurt.com Received: by 10.25.56.9 with HTTP; Fri, 1 Dec 2017 15:47:44 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <1666507.niPtZfyClL@kitterma-e6430> References: <1666507.niPtZfyClL@kitterma-e6430> From: "Kurt Andersen (b)" Date: Fri, 1 Dec 2017 23:47:44 +0000 X-Google-Sender-Auth: eF6taPEBAkU11vh_447VzmCdJjw Message-ID: To: Scott Kitterman , dispatch@ietf.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a114b6254c94dec055f4ffe0d" Archived-At: Subject: Re: [dispatch] [dmarc-ietf] Proposal to invoke a 7601bis effort X-BeenThere: dispatch@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: DISPATCH Working Group Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 01 Dec 2017 23:47:50 -0000 --001a114b6254c94dec055f4ffe0d Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Fair enough - copying dispatch... On Fri, Dec 1, 2017 at 11:23 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote: > On Friday, December 01, 2017 08:39:55 PM Kurt Andersen wrote: > > In the context of work that is happening in the DMARC-WG, some changes to > > RFC7601 have been discussed which we think may merit a 'bis' effort to > > revise 7601. > > > > If you are interested or care, please join the DMARC WG where the > detailed > > discussion will be carried out. > > > > (Apologies for the wide posting, but we wanted to reach a broad group of > > potentially interested parties.) > > > > --Kurt Andersen > > Isn't Dispatch ( https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/dispatch/about/ ) the > proper > venue to discuss this (as the successor to appswg)? > --001a114b6254c94dec055f4ffe0d Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Fair enough - copying dispatch...

On Fri, Dec 1, 2017 at 11:23 PM, Scott Kit= terman <sklist@kitterman.com> wrote:
On Friday, December 0= 1, 2017 08:39:55 PM Kurt Andersen wrote:
> In the context of work that is happening in the DMARC-WG, some changes= to
> RFC7601 have been discussed which we think may merit a 'bis' e= ffort to
> revise 7601.
>
> If you are interested or care, please join the DMARC WG where the deta= iled
> discussion will be carried out.
>
> (Apologies for the wide posting, but we wanted to reach a broad group = of
> potentially interested parties.)
>
> --Kurt Andersen

Isn't Dispatch ( https://datatracker.= ietf.org/wg/dispatch/about/ ) the proper
venue to discuss this (as the successor to appswg)?
<= /div>
--001a114b6254c94dec055f4ffe0d-- From nobody Thu Dec 7 11:01:45 2017 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dispatch@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dispatch@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B63CA1294CE for ; Thu, 7 Dec 2017 11:01:44 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.879 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.879 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, T_SPF_HELO_PERMERROR=0.01, T_SPF_PERMERROR=0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id xMYGsYQTvsrF for ; Thu, 7 Dec 2017 11:01:43 -0800 (PST) Received: from nostrum.com (raven-v6.nostrum.com [IPv6:2001:470:d:1130::1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0D6601241F5 for ; Thu, 7 Dec 2017 11:01:43 -0800 (PST) Received: from [10.0.1.92] (cpe-66-25-7-22.tx.res.rr.com [66.25.7.22]) (authenticated bits=0) by nostrum.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPSA id vB7J1dfr096668 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128 verify=NO); Thu, 7 Dec 2017 13:01:40 -0600 (CST) (envelope-from ben@nostrum.com) X-Authentication-Warning: raven.nostrum.com: Host cpe-66-25-7-22.tx.res.rr.com [66.25.7.22] claimed to be [10.0.1.92] From: Ben Campbell Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_A424D2DD-DFD7-47BF-8221-DEA1CF07B690"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.2 \(3445.5.20\)) Message-Id: <5876660C-0F28-4906-B815-FEA8EDBF7127@nostrum.com> Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2017 13:01:38 -0600 Cc: Cullen Jennings , Mary Barnes , "Murray S. Kucherawy" , Russ Housley To: DISPATCH X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.5.20) Archived-At: Subject: [dispatch] draft-campbell-sip-messaging-smime X-BeenThere: dispatch@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: DISPATCH Working Group Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 07 Dec 2017 19:01:44 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_A424D2DD-DFD7-47BF-8221-DEA1CF07B690 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 (as an individual contributor) Hi, Russ and I submitted a revision of the S/MIME for SIP Messaging = clarification draft last week. We request that this version be run = through the dispatch process: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-campbell-sip-messaging-smime-01 We=E2=80=99ve tried to clarify the problem statement and scope of the = work in section 3, and to address most of the other feedback we received = in the meeting or on the mail list. There are still some open issues, = but I don=E2=80=99t think those should preclude making some plans about = how to progress the work. My personal opinion is that this should progress as an AD sponsored = draft if Adam or Alexey are willing. I don=E2=80=99t think this is a = large enough effort to justify a new WG (mini or otherwise). Parts of it = seem to fit the SIPCORE charter, but the MSRP related bits don=E2=80=99t = really have a home. (unless we want to restart SIMPLE ;-) ) We recognize that there is skepticism about the relevance of both SIMPLE = based messaging and S/MIME. However, a number of wireless operators are = showing a renewed interest in the GSMA RCS, which uses both SIP MESSAGE = and MSRP, and at least some of that community is interested in the = secure notification use case. Thanks! Ben. --Apple-Mail=_A424D2DD-DFD7-47BF-8221-DEA1CF07B690 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: Message signed with OpenPGP -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Comment: GPGTools - https://gpgtools.org iQIzBAEBCgAdFiEExW9rpd7ez4DexOFOgFZKbJXz1A0FAlopkBIACgkQgFZKbJXz 1A2TJxAAse94nbk2Kfsn/NUhXm7cHsoAwYIdDXMdTzqh2HdvP07ESZrvk1dSKSXZ kZp49duLSO59bI2v3qgnXukyax1PkTYYjwTA6PiEIZyzybI7C6MDEUtGnsbwtWbM U76zR4YV1NK9Q6q4IjCXlynWJeu45CpWBVOzdvi1GI/pcJbzAa/7n3v8u+zoirPw 4X+gZZtHS5vgjkOI4QB4LmNmtOwhmmsQonyGZumbqxYJshAF70f5Zjt+KDpb1a+0 /B53Qd28cPr/+blZON+0fyB9ocoC98Q+hBXorriROigACyPCZvnMQZCXuzGmMCQY plslnYClzNkwK2bZbI0musyOsCicKsC7uoRYFLnskQyC4OslENKU7KimNC0ly+/s pzF0igstpnWYngH8DVlsA4kmERWvB+Qd6djJv9l7Lc0Dl5PuGPwk9VlcVjk+QUVC zTe7sCrbgybIoeJmcUXQyekE8xSInfDddRDaG6l5bCbOyAcAaqCV9n9UzVDRddCC wXFYK8hudn+ybEWqN6g0B+G8Hxq/6lfI2ofm7Grr6vsw56VJJGY127oZ/V91mG4J uzXKYQQIdZmI83PePoVAGRLLlhwLDtmX/otxEEdVr+b4iovNJSZ6zxmsTwMeO/YV A1tnJvKkhKRm5y7SdaQflFlnC6l8HUM51Y3nhrJqr3mj1tUlQq8= =ivtJ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Apple-Mail=_A424D2DD-DFD7-47BF-8221-DEA1CF07B690-- From nobody Thu Dec 7 16:52:49 2017 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dispatch@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dispatch@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0B4691286CA for ; Thu, 7 Dec 2017 16:52:48 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.88 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.88 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, T_SPF_HELO_PERMERROR=0.01, T_SPF_PERMERROR=0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id AqJ2poCEtaQn for ; Thu, 7 Dec 2017 16:52:47 -0800 (PST) Received: from nostrum.com (raven-v6.nostrum.com [IPv6:2001:470:d:1130::1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F3992127698 for ; Thu, 7 Dec 2017 16:52:46 -0800 (PST) Received: from Svantevit.local (99-152-146-228.lightspeed.dllstx.sbcglobal.net [99.152.146.228]) (authenticated bits=0) by nostrum.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPSA id vB80qi9b035286 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128 verify=NO); Thu, 7 Dec 2017 18:52:44 -0600 (CST) (envelope-from adam@nostrum.com) X-Authentication-Warning: raven.nostrum.com: Host 99-152-146-228.lightspeed.dllstx.sbcglobal.net [99.152.146.228] claimed to be Svantevit.local To: Ben Campbell , DISPATCH Cc: Russ Housley , Cullen Jennings References: <5876660C-0F28-4906-B815-FEA8EDBF7127@nostrum.com> From: Adam Roach Message-ID: <1e895305-4605-5585-f602-83288e9ed440@nostrum.com> Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2017 18:52:38 -0600 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.10; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <5876660C-0F28-4906-B815-FEA8EDBF7127@nostrum.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Language: en-US Archived-At: Subject: Re: [dispatch] draft-campbell-sip-messaging-smime X-BeenThere: dispatch@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: DISPATCH Working Group Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 08 Dec 2017 00:52:48 -0000 On 12/7/17 1:01 PM, Ben Campbell wrote: > My personal opinion is that this should progress as an AD sponsored draft if Adam or Alexey are willing. For the record, I'm happy to AD-sponsor this if that's the path DISPATCH ends up settling on. /a From nobody Thu Dec 7 19:40:18 2017 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dispatch@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dispatch@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DB9CE1250B8 for ; Thu, 7 Dec 2017 19:40:16 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.201 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.201 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-2.8, RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM=0.5, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id wNiW2RvRqjQ2 for ; Thu, 7 Dec 2017 19:40:15 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtp64.iad3a.emailsrvr.com (smtp64.iad3a.emailsrvr.com [173.203.187.64]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 60187128BB6 for ; Thu, 7 Dec 2017 19:40:13 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtp1.relay.iad3a.emailsrvr.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp1.relay.iad3a.emailsrvr.com (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id 76CD65BE5; Thu, 7 Dec 2017 22:40:07 -0500 (EST) X-Auth-ID: fluffy@iii.ca Received: by smtp1.relay.iad3a.emailsrvr.com (Authenticated sender: fluffy-AT-iii.ca) with ESMTPSA id 36F4E5BCB; Thu, 7 Dec 2017 22:40:07 -0500 (EST) X-Sender-Id: fluffy@iii.ca Received: from [10.1.3.55] (S0106004268479ae3.cg.shawcable.net [70.77.44.153]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384) by 0.0.0.0:587 (trex/5.7.12); Thu, 07 Dec 2017 22:40:07 -0500 From: Cullen Jennings Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.2 \(3259\)) Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2017 20:40:06 -0700 Message-Id: <354C4752-6EEF-4592-9BC6-5BB2F3976AB7@iii.ca> To: DISPATCH list X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3259) Archived-At: Subject: [dispatch] dispatching draft-campbell-sip-messaging-smime X-BeenThere: dispatch@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: DISPATCH Working Group Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 08 Dec 2017 03:40:17 -0000 =46rom all the discussions so far, it seems the most logical path for = this draft is AD sponsor. If anyone has any strong objections to this = draft being AD sponsored, please let us know by Dec 14.=20 Thanks, Cullen =20= From nobody Thu Dec 7 23:18:12 2017 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dispatch@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dispatch@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0B7FC126B7E for ; Thu, 7 Dec 2017 23:18:11 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.221 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.221 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id CiGqKF-wSPfv for ; Thu, 7 Dec 2017 23:18:09 -0800 (PST) Received: from sesbmg23.ericsson.net (sesbmg23.ericsson.net [193.180.251.37]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0FCA6124BE8 for ; Thu, 7 Dec 2017 23:18:08 -0800 (PST) X-AuditID: c1b4fb25-36dff70000000151-2b-5a2a3caea58c Received: from ESESSHC021.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [153.88.183.81]) by sesbmg23.ericsson.net (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id 40.EA.00337.EAC3A2A5; Fri, 8 Dec 2017 08:18:06 +0100 (CET) Received: from ESESSMB109.ericsson.se ([169.254.9.225]) by ESESSHC021.ericsson.se ([153.88.183.81]) with mapi id 14.03.0352.000; Fri, 8 Dec 2017 08:18:06 +0100 From: Christer Holmberg To: Cullen Jennings , DISPATCH list Thread-Topic: [dispatch] dispatching draft-campbell-sip-messaging-smime Thread-Index: AQHTb9ZGvM+3H/6IHUaKjTzoreqq66M5HQEA Date: Fri, 8 Dec 2017 07:18:06 +0000 Message-ID: References: <354C4752-6EEF-4592-9BC6-5BB2F3976AB7@iii.ca> In-Reply-To: <354C4752-6EEF-4592-9BC6-5BB2F3976AB7@iii.ca> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.7.7.170905 x-originating-ip: [153.88.183.20] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <07F54A743D395C428957CFA5008727AE@ericsson.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFprEIsWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUyM2J7oO46G60og4lvLS2WTlrAavFh/Q9G ByaPJUt+MnlcPv+RMYApissmJTUnsyy1SN8ugSvj4/HN7AXrWCtW3H/C0sC4gaWLkZNDQsBE ovnXa6YuRi4OIYHDjBKfJ7xhhnAWM0o0d8xh7WLk4GATsJDo/qcN0iAi4CbxeNoEJhBbGMh+ PaOVGaRERMBdorFNDqLESGJy90Y2EJtFQEXi5eOTTCAlvALWEj/vZYOEhQQsJRauuwh2AqeA lcSztxdYQWxGATGJ76fWgE1nFhCXuPVkPhPEmQISS/acZ4awRYFG/gOrFxXQk9hw4jY7RFxR 4ur05VC9OhILdn9ig7CtJTbvfMIOYWtLLFv4GmwOr4CgxMmZT1gmMIrNQrJuFpL2WUjaZyFp n4WkfQEj6ypG0eLU4qTcdCNjvdSizOTi4vw8vbzUkk2MwJg6uOW36g7Gy28cDzEKcDAq8fBG 6WtFCbEmlhVX5h5ilOBgVhLh7S7TjBLiTUmsrEotyo8vKs1JLT7EKM3BoiTOe9KTN0pIID2x JDU7NbUgtQgmy8TBKdXAaCSuUWnwIVOgbxPflq4KoWOPHZp8NG2aYuTmaocWnz0hnSZhdWGS msS91Ntb1z2flxVy1OLLLr2Tgt6aDHLz9V4+PZgg1vT/dPHuVvfD7lcDfBelzp7TKc9Y9b3P 64Xw1YqJF+/vvMi6/Kf678RzpQempqgu/HT556u350P1NPdd2q/8bs61MiWW4oxEQy3mouJE AGE8YFClAgAA Archived-At: Subject: Re: [dispatch] dispatching draft-campbell-sip-messaging-smime X-BeenThere: dispatch@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: DISPATCH Working Group Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 08 Dec 2017 07:18:11 -0000 Hi, I have no problem with AD sponsored, but we should make sure that at least SIPCORE reviews the draft before publication. Regards, Christer On 08/12/17 05:40, "dispatch on behalf of Cullen Jennings" wrote: > >From all the discussions so far, it seems the most logical path for this >draft is AD sponsor. If anyone has any strong objections to this draft >being AD sponsored, please let us know by Dec 14. > >Thanks, Cullen > >=20 >_______________________________________________ >dispatch mailing list >dispatch@ietf.org >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dispatch From nobody Fri Dec 8 06:56:17 2017 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dispatch@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dispatch@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7DC10126E64 for ; Fri, 8 Dec 2017 06:56:15 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.89 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.89 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, T_SPF_PERMERROR=0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=brianrosen-net.20150623.gappssmtp.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id KWOuWOHNOHru for ; Fri, 8 Dec 2017 06:56:13 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-qt0-x229.google.com (mail-qt0-x229.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c0d::229]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 753591243FE for ; Fri, 8 Dec 2017 06:56:13 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-qt0-x229.google.com with SMTP id g10so26411440qtj.12 for ; Fri, 08 Dec 2017 06:56:13 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=brianrosen-net.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=7QQ7tBSUFwfYJu2irbpM3ohZ5QAV7+S7ag/1VHyhaZ4=; b=xSSrizs3cCXmZ5xU2gX12pimI4SfJSEdQPjoaCt2TBM1dS+z7Co5MyMPu/G1EnYfcp yZ/bmjx8exUfLhHSnAu4IBccpd+sgz6EG2Q9aDxwBllOx7bP4WVUvoZxo05PMquoT5JB hqlLNSWMDtyaznCfjyiZV9gMl5KFtRIrvzPErpyhW8MKaBDW8322qtStPpGVunNanL6A ATzM87IJE/pRBZFIz7B7sXIh5iBVTD7KivJ0kfm3cuwigFKlbUOxOUX9yITx58Q+d+Re Mesms+FaTJwwZHFTZGVsft2TK4LXsLg7ldr1jd32EHMAqZfCPLaPTDR5qh95icP4hnGM QeXA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=7QQ7tBSUFwfYJu2irbpM3ohZ5QAV7+S7ag/1VHyhaZ4=; b=UnGttwmwxvl7zhyH73T/ULzBikfwj+mTCvKD6y88komRbZ5zGoHTV7pXKqIAZgIy2Y 1NCKDc1Th/yqNSV0IhSsCGAYW3KVfgzdjRs0XtB8HDhJRXZaNPpe0iBT2Exle5v0d9Up tF0f/yXfblft3L+aBudaKaTyX6MJfaPglXWXVRxrZ8BibjFJWwzSYYH0C4iBx8svMYvB EgWqwDTAZy339Yzfp+guYioeAiL2onYuzXRw+aa1HZ35g5FXRZYmpOEf6Q5dvrxx/hL3 V08UKDqlckmPazfZwkJ7gwdF8cv0NJ0h1O+ZWpAcpHUV8A3TrfJr2ltlCKtIsqcIFGv2 yVmA== X-Gm-Message-State: AKGB3mIYGblpkBOaK8JcfdzHF/qRZt8sIv6YLpaPQkInlzj8ie4hSJeL fwVRJ5s5wlIGEOeBpWRsUF7gTQ== X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGs4zMalNKs90lGO7SB4iE5JHKdsTiQiwTMAQxm+ot3E4CkDToKf1rxdIY/1/Rid6V0lEF1eD+ntiw== X-Received: by 10.55.33.129 with SMTP id f1mr37604081qki.109.1512744972526; Fri, 08 Dec 2017 06:56:12 -0800 (PST) Received: from [10.96.9.103] (neustar-sthide-nat1.neustar.biz. [156.154.81.54]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id i5sm78385qta.97.2017.12.08.06.56.10 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 08 Dec 2017 06:56:11 -0800 (PST) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.3 \(3273\)) From: Brian Rosen In-Reply-To: Date: Fri, 8 Dec 2017 09:56:10 -0500 Cc: Cullen Jennings , DISPATCH list Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <286888B2-4577-4504-A76A-FA237DE483E6@brianrosen.net> References: <354C4752-6EEF-4592-9BC6-5BB2F3976AB7@iii.ca> To: Christer Holmberg X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3273) Archived-At: Subject: Re: [dispatch] dispatching draft-campbell-sip-messaging-smime X-BeenThere: dispatch@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: DISPATCH Working Group Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 08 Dec 2017 14:56:15 -0000 We=E2=80=99ll do that. We could probably also take it on if it=E2=80=99s = decided that=E2=80=99s best.=20 Brian > On Dec 8, 2017, at 2:18 AM, Christer Holmberg = wrote: >=20 > Hi, >=20 > I have no problem with AD sponsored, but we should make sure that at = least > SIPCORE reviews the draft before publication. >=20 > Regards, >=20 > Christer >=20 >=20 > On 08/12/17 05:40, "dispatch on behalf of Cullen Jennings" > wrote: >=20 >>=20 >> =46rom all the discussions so far, it seems the most logical path for = this >> draft is AD sponsor. If anyone has any strong objections to this = draft >> being AD sponsored, please let us know by Dec 14. >>=20 >> Thanks, Cullen >>=20 >>=20 >> _______________________________________________ >> dispatch mailing list >> dispatch@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dispatch >=20 > _______________________________________________ > dispatch mailing list > dispatch@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dispatch From nobody Mon Dec 11 12:48:04 2017 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dispatch@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dispatch@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1F87C127444 for ; Mon, 11 Dec 2017 12:48:03 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.999 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Z-G3Exfj7z3t for ; Mon, 11 Dec 2017 12:48:01 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-qt0-x235.google.com (mail-qt0-x235.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c0d::235]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EC7661273B1 for ; Mon, 11 Dec 2017 12:48:00 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-qt0-x235.google.com with SMTP id f2so42063682qtj.4 for ; Mon, 11 Dec 2017 12:48:00 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=MvFkKciyTl7PS5DeeX5Vv8SIX5CfTyJPpmQGnUX/YyI=; b=eyF2O+kf1UkM4EDbwFtwVIvZSfL/IUlgwMHQe352mNyjAF3hhy98JxGUy4Y651f04B OvvsdjZB/f0dzXJImP1WR7eQ1BivsbjQSLIiz5+IIA4FiWSvJI0Rh7G0PYtT4mu5DpJk 65wnbYE6z/7P/0LBOpKJ3x7z1qG4M3DpZcNvg6Fh2Bg/lLosh1fyzLyeEORvL1yNvYFm SMJYUULBjsVvBX8A1ltAtOnOAroXu1vzCA2SRhKp0EQA/Hxp7fTK0/kArwJVUBVA20BD D7caHYzLyLZ/ylPxUlilQePVTL1ieyUVJAB24p9IkBCtTh1IEeecoeeZ6rT8EZzT6t+W J3ow== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=MvFkKciyTl7PS5DeeX5Vv8SIX5CfTyJPpmQGnUX/YyI=; b=TwG9/IzNeWdeKBw4s2ie4AxP/iNdU6iknTatjWeMok+/u+fSN2oMvLZ+ZQT3zjS+UJ hnRZpKNbMZwC9R/odXpWW7lDCORBvWZeHWShwByyxfyZIO5OYUJOGZYYjCXyXKKoRU1r GxPfKx6olSpJZuxgE5SKq+S/d/uMoLsxlYALHe0qW89+5Y3us408Qpg5sUxisy4/EwmQ 7Y7TOJ/k3GOj+au59cObr7M3A0KMt/MjuiPbODZS2Y38m/wPr6X0vng2bKcNHmaTohL0 gaJDB7RMqXDlWrvcO8MqYtoMcro8TV55e/inhZ1rQCLKuyl7yzh8Ui9/ZvLn2HridT3b AJVQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AKGB3mLK8GWijpHtMd/vMkfBnhJRy5I0vacqeIf5R3pY66p4xHBrefjh B8OLChAGS3zwqRR/aZR9RgFXZ2ousAK6IiFFhrg= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACJfBoujB7e5saB2/xaWwT32fnMw44UsjjUGIEbcZ9yCvU82Fw/IttwSDV6lnlB0NkiPmBEj4zrcH4C9I2yCa41/pWs= X-Received: by 10.55.23.24 with SMTP id i24mr2439396qkh.181.1513025280031; Mon, 11 Dec 2017 12:48:00 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.140.39.72 with HTTP; Mon, 11 Dec 2017 12:47:59 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <354C4752-6EEF-4592-9BC6-5BB2F3976AB7@iii.ca> References: <354C4752-6EEF-4592-9BC6-5BB2F3976AB7@iii.ca> From: Mary Barnes Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2017 14:47:59 -0600 Message-ID: To: Cullen Jennings Cc: DISPATCH list Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a11458d945a5127056016a6bd" Archived-At: Subject: Re: [dispatch] dispatching draft-campbell-sip-messaging-smime X-BeenThere: dispatch@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: DISPATCH Working Group Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2017 20:48:03 -0000 --001a11458d945a5127056016a6bd Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" As an individual, I have a slight preference for a mini WG as I think that would make it easier for this to get on the radar of security folks before it goes through IETF LC. The whole notion of a mini WG was to provide a lightweight process for work that might be of a bit broader interest than other drafts we have AD sponsored in the past that are of more interest to a narrower group (e.g., 3GPP specific docs). And, yeah, I know that we likely have the most expert people in IETF working on this, but in the spirit of transparency I don't necessarily think that's the highest priority factor when we determine how to dispatch work items. Regards, Mary. On Thu, Dec 7, 2017 at 9:40 PM, Cullen Jennings wrote: > > From all the discussions so far, it seems the most logical path for this > draft is AD sponsor. If anyone has any strong objections to this draft > being AD sponsored, please let us know by Dec 14. > > Thanks, Cullen > > > _______________________________________________ > dispatch mailing list > dispatch@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dispatch > --001a11458d945a5127056016a6bd Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
As an individual, I have a slight preference for a mini WG= as I think that would make it easier for this to get on the radar of secur= ity folks before it goes through IETF LC.=C2=A0 The whole notion of a mini = WG was to provide a lightweight process for work that might be of a bit bro= ader interest than other drafts we have AD sponsored in the past that are o= f more interest to a narrower group (e.g., 3GPP specific docs).=C2=A0
<= br>
And, yeah, I know that we likely have the most expert people = in IETF working on this, but in the spirit of transparency I don't nece= ssarily think that's the highest priority factor when we determine how = to dispatch work items.

Regards,
Mary.

On = Thu, Dec 7, 2017 at 9:40 PM, Cullen Jennings <fluffy@iii.ca> wr= ote:

>From all the discussions so far, it seems the most logical path for this dr= aft is AD sponsor. If anyone has any strong objections to this draft being = AD sponsored, please let us know by Dec 14.

Thanks, Cullen <with my co-chair hat on>


_______________________________________________
dispatch mailing list
dispatch@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dispatch

--001a11458d945a5127056016a6bd-- From nobody Tue Dec 12 00:48:14 2017 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dispatch@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dispatch@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9C4331292AE for ; Tue, 12 Dec 2017 00:48:12 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.219 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.219 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id kUXJIgetRDDH for ; Tue, 12 Dec 2017 00:48:10 -0800 (PST) Received: from sesbmg22.ericsson.net (sesbmg22.ericsson.net [193.180.251.48]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 47814128B8F for ; Tue, 12 Dec 2017 00:48:10 -0800 (PST) X-AuditID: c1b4fb30-d49ff70000006bc7-a0-5a2f97c84f31 Received: from ESESSHC010.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [153.88.183.48]) by sesbmg22.ericsson.net (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id 8C.73.27591.8C79F2A5; Tue, 12 Dec 2017 09:48:08 +0100 (CET) Received: from ESESSMB109.ericsson.se ([169.254.9.225]) by ESESSHC010.ericsson.se ([153.88.183.48]) with mapi id 14.03.0352.000; Tue, 12 Dec 2017 09:48:07 +0100 From: Christer Holmberg To: Mary Barnes , Cullen Jennings CC: DISPATCH list Thread-Topic: [dispatch] dispatching draft-campbell-sip-messaging-smime Thread-Index: AQHTb9ZGvM+3H/6IHUaKjTzoreqq66M+kjiAgADtUAA= Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2017 08:48:07 +0000 Message-ID: References: <354C4752-6EEF-4592-9BC6-5BB2F3976AB7@iii.ca> In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.7.7.170905 x-originating-ip: [153.88.183.147] Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_D655659A274C3christerholmbergericssoncom_" MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFtrMIsWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUyM2K7ge6J6fpRBve75C2WTlrAavFh/Q9G i8/79zM7MHvsnHWX3WPJkp9MHpfPf2QMYI7isklJzcksSy3St0vgyljdOZO94LNGRfsViwbG P4pdjJwcEgImEq/WzmbqYuTiEBI4zCix/sQvRghnCaPE2bbZQA4HB5uAhUT3P22QBhEBX4kN szvYQGxmAVWJ86c6mUFsYQE3idczWplBykUE3CUa2+QgTCuJpXNUQSpYgKr3bb8M1skrYC3R suMyC8SmBkaJz8/OMIEkOAUCJc50LwAbySggJvH91BomiFXiEreezGeCuFlAYsme88wQtqjE y8f/WEFsUQE9iQ0nbrOD7JUQUJKYtjUNojVB4uDrHSwQewUlTs58wjKBUXQWkqmzkJTNQlIG ETeQeH9uPjOErS2xbOFrKFtfYuOXs4wQtrXE+Q+t7MhqFjByrGIULU4tTspNNzLSSy3KTC4u zs/Ty0st2cQIjMqDW34b7GB8+dzxEKMAB6MSD29ri36UEGtiWXFl7iFGCQ5mJRHe7iagEG9K YmVValF+fFFpTmrxIUZpDhYlcd6TnrxRQgLpiSWp2ampBalFMFkmDk6pBsaWSGXzWULS5U+K zpzV/KKQ6rDmXsyWIq5vpkLsykxOBw6zuey4vXmK2OUAm5gGCY4q1R2XldJZc5cx5T7OvP+s 5u1yjWUrqgydvs7fd2ZWaNRhHbu+qqSyYx1myYtfHXvcLCDtfLFPTvrBjht9WYln/7YwbrAp PL4644QC11KTIwc3qz24pqbEUpyRaKjFXFScCABjY8W4xgIAAA== Archived-At: Subject: Re: [dispatch] dispatching draft-campbell-sip-messaging-smime X-BeenThere: dispatch@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: DISPATCH Working Group Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2017 08:48:12 -0000 --_000_D655659A274C3christerholmbergericssoncom_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi, > As an individual, I have a slight preference for a mini WG as I think tha= t would make it easier for this to get on the radar of security folks befor= e it goes through IETF LC. The > whole notion of a mini WG was to provide a lightweight process for work t= hat might be of a bit broader interest than other drafts we have AD sponsor= ed in the past that are of more interest to a narrower group (e.g., 3GPP sp= ecific docs). > > And, yeah, I know that we likely have the most expert people in IETF work= ing on this, but in the spirit of transparency I don't necessarily think th= at's the highest priority factor when we determine how to dispatch work ite= ms. While the protocol experts may be in IETF, some major users of the protocol= s are outside IETF. For example, I got feedback of the =9600 version by one= of my GSMA colleagues, forwarded it to the author, and it has now been add= ressed in section 9.1 of the =9601 version. But again, as long as we make sure the appropriate people are made aware of= the draft, and will have an opportunity to review it before publication, I= have no strong feelings whether it=92s done as AD sponsored, within a mini= -WG or within an existing WG. Same people :) Regards, Christer On Thu, Dec 7, 2017 at 9:40 PM, Cullen Jennings > wrote: >From all the discussions so far, it seems the most logical path for this d= raft is AD sponsor. If anyone has any strong objections to this draft being= AD sponsored, please let us know by Dec 14. Thanks, Cullen _______________________________________________ dispatch mailing list dispatch@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dispatch --_000_D655659A274C3christerholmbergericssoncom_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="Windows-1252" Content-ID: <9726706125F7A944B7064C8054A27693@ericsson.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi,

> As an individual, I have a slight preference for a mi= ni WG as I think that would make it easier for this to get on the radar of = security folks before it goes through IETF LC.  The
> whole notion of a mini WG was to provide a lightweight process fo= r work that might be of a bit broader interest than other drafts we have AD= sponsored in the past that are of more interest to a narrower group (e.g.,= 3GPP specific docs). 
>
> And, yeah, I know that we likely have the most expert people in I= ETF working on this, but in the spirit of transparency I don't necessarily = think that's the highest priority factor when we determine how to dispatch = work items.

While the protocol experts may be in IETF, some major users of the pro= tocols are outside IETF. For example, I got feedback of the =9600 version b= y one of my GSMA colleagues, forwarded it to the author, and it has now bee= n addressed in section 9.1 of the =9601 version.

But again, as long as we make sure the appropriate people are made awa= re of the draft, and will have an opportunity to review it before publicati= on, I have no strong feelings whether it=92s done as AD sponsored, within a= mini-WG or within an existing WG. Same people :)

Regards,

Christer



On Thu, Dec 7, 2017 at 9:40 PM, Cullen Jennings = <fluffy@iii.ca>= ; wrote:

>From all the discussions so far, it seems the most logical path for thi= s draft is AD sponsor. If anyone has any strong objections to this draft be= ing AD sponsored, please let us know by Dec 14.

Thanks, Cullen <with my co-chair hat on>


_______________________________________________
dispatch mailing list
dispatch@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dispatch

--_000_D655659A274C3christerholmbergericssoncom_-- From nobody Tue Dec 12 00:58:42 2017 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dispatch@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dispatch@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0013E12940B for ; Tue, 12 Dec 2017 00:58:41 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.22 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.22 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Ox91nJm9Uxne for ; Tue, 12 Dec 2017 00:58:39 -0800 (PST) Received: from sesbmg22.ericsson.net (sesbmg22.ericsson.net [193.180.251.48]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A8EBC1200CF for ; Tue, 12 Dec 2017 00:58:38 -0800 (PST) X-AuditID: c1b4fb30-11d5e9c000006bc7-c8-5a2f9a3cfc87 Received: from ESESSHC009.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [153.88.183.45]) by sesbmg22.ericsson.net (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id A9.76.27591.C3A9F2A5; Tue, 12 Dec 2017 09:58:37 +0100 (CET) Received: from ESESSMB109.ericsson.se ([169.254.9.225]) by ESESSHC009.ericsson.se ([153.88.183.45]) with mapi id 14.03.0352.000; Tue, 12 Dec 2017 09:58:30 +0100 From: Christer Holmberg To: Ben Campbell , DISPATCH CC: Russ Housley , Cullen Jennings Thread-Topic: [dispatch] draft-campbell-sip-messaging-smime - Updates to RFCs Thread-Index: AQHTcydhEKdAJPMHf0CzaRFMaWwbEw== Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2017 08:58:30 +0000 Message-ID: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.7.7.170905 x-originating-ip: [153.88.183.17] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-ID: <2E9BFABE2C83B84BA06074679A589535@ericsson.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFprOIsWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUyM2K7rq7tLP0ogwOPGS3md55mt1g6aQGr xYf1PxgtXr24ye7A4rFkyU8mj8vnPzJ6zNr5hMVj1Z0vrAEsUVw2Kak5mWWpRfp2CVwZq78u ZCuYJVDx5EwrYwPja54uRk4OCQETiR09m5i7GLk4hAQOM0rM7/nIBuEsYZT4t6uDsYuRg4NN wEKi+582iCki4CDxaYEwSC+zgIfE8mer2UHCwgI+Eq3nckDCIgK+Esta5jJC2HoSaxu6mEFs FgFViedzzoLZvALWEj2HjoLVMAqISXw/tYYJYqS4xK0n85kgThOQWLLnPDOELSrx8vE/VhBb FGjmhhO3wdZKCChKLO+Xg2g1kHh/bj4zSJgZaPzt91BHakssW/gaaqugxMmZT1gmMIrOQrJs FpLuWQjds5B0z0LSvYCRdRWjaHFqcVJuupGRXmpRZnJxcX6eXl5qySZGYHQd3PLbYAfjy+eO hxgFOBiVeHhbW/SjhFgTy4orcw8xSnAwK4nwdjcBhXhTEiurUovy44tKc1KLDzFKc7AoifOe 9OSNEhJITyxJzU5NLUgtgskycXBKNTBKai4L2vhzJvf8t7PKFkgVXG01E3sfHvvKj+/u7UOL X91kLvM5vGqVxLPDPalN+44dj//x9oyP4ca+QsdnierqYmnPT57k4uGYulPP1qdN7vPpggNv r0rPL3wgFiP88/8fg32fXl8KXLbsqfLtX6c2Nhs0MG5ZpVt35Ey+1/ryRtYC0STJPX+nKrEU ZyQaajEXFScCAGJOZgGqAgAA Archived-At: Subject: Re: [dispatch] draft-campbell-sip-messaging-smime - Updates to RFCs X-BeenThere: dispatch@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: DISPATCH Working Group Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2017 08:58:41 -0000 Hi, The document says: "This document updates and clarifies RFC 3261, RFC 3428, and RFC 4975 in an attempt to make the S/MIME for SIP and MSRP easier to implement and deploy in an interoperable fashion.=B2 =8Aand: "This document offers normative updates and clarifications to the use of S/MIME with the SIP MESSAGE method and MSRP.=B2 I think there should be =B3Update to RFC XXXX=B2 sections, where the update= s are summarised. You may not need to update actual text, but at least describe what functionality/feature is updated, and which section the update applies to. Regards, Christer On 07/12/17 21:01, "dispatch on behalf of Ben Campbell" wrote: >(as an individual contributor) > >Hi, > >Russ and I submitted a revision of the S/MIME for SIP Messaging >clarification draft last week. We request that this version be run >through the dispatch process: > >https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-campbell-sip-messaging-smime-01 > >We=B9ve tried to clarify the problem statement and scope of the work in >section 3, and to address most of the other feedback we received in the >meeting or on the mail list. There are still some open issues, but I >don=B9t think those should preclude making some plans about how to progres= s >the work. > >My personal opinion is that this should progress as an AD sponsored draft >if Adam or Alexey are willing. I don=B9t think this is a large enough >effort to justify a new WG (mini or otherwise). Parts of it seem to fit >the SIPCORE charter, but the MSRP related bits don=B9t really have a home. >(unless we want to restart SIMPLE ;-) ) > >We recognize that there is skepticism about the relevance of both SIMPLE >based messaging and S/MIME. However, a number of wireless operators are >showing a renewed interest in the GSMA RCS, which uses both SIP MESSAGE >and MSRP, and at least some of that community is interested in the secure >notification use case. > >Thanks! > >Ben. From nobody Tue Dec 12 10:07:40 2017 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dispatch@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dispatch@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DF2921294EC for ; Tue, 12 Dec 2017 10:07:37 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.998 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.998 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id mZH3uhXCDiQB for ; Tue, 12 Dec 2017 10:07:35 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-qt0-x22a.google.com (mail-qt0-x22a.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c0d::22a]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id ACB04127076 for ; Tue, 12 Dec 2017 10:07:35 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-qt0-x22a.google.com with SMTP id e2so49521989qti.0 for ; Tue, 12 Dec 2017 10:07:35 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=titrVh0ZJkYzpB69s8nKU3MkUXhYYxI09W/d5vfDQ2M=; b=o8Yb8TPOfh5sLd0HlHH1KmtH0XRSzj2I3zHviV8g94h4QkXrORbhJVyo0dZHVHR4mk L2i+ltn9+CTrMBu8WOflqq2pAinZXhQOO/+gZ5wtnkSbQCv7Scfhi0eXeuSrV8hwl8H9 D9kgt5yl1TlM1VoxJL6qeYHFi0+xLNrapY7onYX9oCEKbxjw1gepTWYYsbJn9Y3i6Oa7 3z9bDOsFuTTPt0Qu9xxnhkkfn2uWnCTURNDfnwqVFRB8Oj9nxoX/dCDyzvZxj99Pb6qU CSU2hzAQlNknF7e+HiX00GWzejDiAmiYp93NC7hWEsFTVsUDhLUGGwgSbSihF+srqJu2 soOw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=titrVh0ZJkYzpB69s8nKU3MkUXhYYxI09W/d5vfDQ2M=; b=Gv/yqNRiox9c6fumIFbWLAdtzO3z2KSG8uRhPQwHpmd8eT6BcVxQRrtjIFThxhgz6d 2rGFxp5JRMDDxH+lp13iVb9XIN3oWIZa2iRnDMA71CT5AFQk4FgupquVUiaQzNcWUWEj o5R2GIu2DIWy9Vk6C6tlUtDQgSwFGOaYNx73mRIS9+m0tzf2AoiEYI9/9iTkanjOTASs Ae66q6CsfSTqEp9KvM0bzeyXZjTLe0KCf53C4F/0EiPKkVLx8VUBof5BhPf7NUJCHFT7 fHmkfoQnBYbCvvr/pV297lDvJKO6CYsUYSdmq0zdi7y0662LogvxbdP/dMyAmNC1sUua whqA== X-Gm-Message-State: AKGB3mIv6YGM1HL7xCOnJaEqfGBrRj/Yier7mVO7S9IfwvQrYbGqkL0F fE0PDrKDBa/Jp//RbnpRPfATnhrYxzHxPHiobrw= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACJfBosk9OXNTGa0RAiO1sekFonL69TkbmbglGMwCL/Qd0vMMFrzUyGPU9Qzj628BPkhm4+13Mr6o4O8MWu56hSdFA4= X-Received: by 10.55.136.129 with SMTP id k123mr6130226qkd.341.1513102054614; Tue, 12 Dec 2017 10:07:34 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.140.39.72 with HTTP; Tue, 12 Dec 2017 10:07:33 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: <354C4752-6EEF-4592-9BC6-5BB2F3976AB7@iii.ca> From: Mary Barnes Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2017 12:07:33 -0600 Message-ID: To: Christer Holmberg Cc: Cullen Jennings , DISPATCH list Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="94eb2c072730796db50560288628" Archived-At: Subject: Re: [dispatch] dispatching draft-campbell-sip-messaging-smime X-BeenThere: dispatch@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: DISPATCH Working Group Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2017 18:07:38 -0000 --94eb2c072730796db50560288628 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Well, you missed my point that it might not be the "same people" if we have a mini-WG that has S/MIME in the WG name. I would think that we might get a few more security folks from the outset as opposed to getting *additional* input from security folks during IETF LC when they do the SecDIR review. Again, I realize that with Russ as a author, there likely will not be issues. But, I still think broader input from the security community isn't a bad thing. Mary. On Tue, Dec 12, 2017 at 2:48 AM, Christer Holmberg < christer.holmberg@ericsson.com> wrote: > Hi, > > > As an individual, I have a slight preference for a mini WG as I think > that would make it easier for this to get on the radar of security folks > before it goes through IETF LC. The > > whole notion of a mini WG was to provide a lightweight process for work > that might be of a bit broader interest than other drafts we have AD > sponsored in the past that are of more interest to a narrower group (e.g.= , > 3GPP specific docs). > > > > And, yeah, I know that we likely have the most expert people in IETF > working on this, but in the spirit of transparency I don't necessarily > think that's the highest priority factor when we determine how to dispatc= h > work items. > > While the protocol experts may be in IETF, some major users of the > protocols are outside IETF. For example, I got feedback of the =E2=80=930= 0 version > by one of my GSMA colleagues, forwarded it to the author, and it has now > been addressed in section 9.1 of the =E2=80=9301 version. > > But again, as long as we make sure the appropriate people are made aware > of the draft, and will have an opportunity to review it before publicatio= n, > I have no strong feelings whether it=E2=80=99s done as AD sponsored, with= in a > mini-WG or within an existing WG. Same people :) > > Regards, > > Christer > > > > On Thu, Dec 7, 2017 at 9:40 PM, Cullen Jennings wrote: > >> >> >From all the discussions so far, it seems the most logical path for thi= s >> draft is AD sponsor. If anyone has any strong objections to this draft >> being AD sponsored, please let us know by Dec 14. >> >> Thanks, Cullen >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> dispatch mailing list >> dispatch@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dispatch >> > > --94eb2c072730796db50560288628 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Well, you missed my point that it might not be the "s= ame people" if we have a mini-WG that has S/MIME in the WG name.=C2=A0= I would think that we might get a few more security folks from the outset = as opposed to getting *additional* input from security folks during IETF LC= when they do the SecDIR review.=C2=A0 Again, I realize that with Russ as a= author, there likely will not be issues. But, I still think broader input = from the security community isn't a bad thing.=C2=A0

Mary.=C2=A0=C2=A0

On Tue, Dec 12, 2017 at 2:48 AM, Christer Holmberg <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com> wrote:
Hi,

> As an individual, I have a slight preference for a mi= ni WG as I think that would make it easier for this to get on the radar of = security folks before it goes through IETF LC.=C2=A0 The
> whole notion of a mini WG was to provide a lightweight process fo= r work that might be of a bit broader interest than other drafts we have AD= sponsored in the past that are of more interest to a narrower group (e.g.,= 3GPP specific docs).=C2=A0
>
> And, yeah, I know that we likely have the most expert people in I= ETF working on this, but in the spirit of transparency I don't necessar= ily think that's the highest priority factor when we determine how to d= ispatch work items.

While the protocol experts may be in IETF, some major users of = the protocols are outside IETF. For example, I got feedback of the =E2=80= =9300 version by one of my GSMA colleagues, forwarded it to the author, and= it has now been addressed in section 9.1 of the =E2=80=9301 version.

But again, as long as we make sure the appropriate people are made awa= re of the draft, and will have an opportunity to review it before publicati= on, I have no strong feelings whether it=E2=80=99s done as AD sponsored, wi= thin a mini-WG or within an existing WG. Same people :)

Regards,

Christer



On Thu, Dec 7, 2017 at 9:40 PM, Cullen Jennings = <fluffy@iii.ca>= ; wrote:

>From all the discussions so far, it seems the most logical path for thi= s draft is AD sponsor. If anyone has any strong objections to this draft be= ing AD sponsored, please let us know by Dec 14.

Thanks, Cullen <with my co-chair hat on>


_______________________________________________
dispatch mailing list
dispatch@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dispatch

--94eb2c072730796db50560288628-- From nobody Tue Dec 12 12:26:30 2017 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dispatch@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dispatch@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AA813126D73 for ; Tue, 12 Dec 2017 12:26:28 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.219 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.219 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id GT0PXTRoYDro for ; Tue, 12 Dec 2017 12:26:26 -0800 (PST) Received: from sesbmg22.ericsson.net (sesbmg22.ericsson.net [193.180.251.48]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0C457126B7E for ; Tue, 12 Dec 2017 12:26:25 -0800 (PST) X-AuditID: c1b4fb30-d49ff70000006bc7-fd-5a303b70dcb0 Received: from ESESSHC006.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [153.88.183.36]) by sesbmg22.ericsson.net (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id BA.C2.27591.07B303A5; Tue, 12 Dec 2017 21:26:24 +0100 (CET) Received: from ESESSMB109.ericsson.se ([169.254.9.225]) by ESESSHC006.ericsson.se ([153.88.183.36]) with mapi id 14.03.0352.000; Tue, 12 Dec 2017 21:26:24 +0100 From: Christer Holmberg To: Mary Barnes CC: Cullen Jennings , DISPATCH list Thread-Topic: [dispatch] dispatching draft-campbell-sip-messaging-smime Thread-Index: AQHTb9ZGvM+3H/6IHUaKjTzoreqq66M+kjiAgADtUACAAHgxgIAAN0NA Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2017 20:26:23 +0000 Message-ID: <7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B6C0511DD@ESESSMB109.ericsson.se> References: <354C4752-6EEF-4592-9BC6-5BB2F3976AB7@iii.ca> In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [153.88.183.148] Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B6C0511DDESESSMB109erics_" MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFprNIsWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUyM2K7im6BtUGUwfZj4hZLJy1gtfiw/gej xef9+5kdmD12zrrL7rFkyU8mj8vnPzIGMEdx2aSk5mSWpRbp2yVwZTxtmsRUsKi+ouHaSuYG xjfVXYycHBICJhKzV55j72Lk4hASOMwo8WTLHCYIZwmjxN7Pk4EyHBxsAhYS3f+0QRpEBHQk vn1+ywZiMwu4Sfzq6WMCsYWB7BMtP5lBykUE3CUa2+Qgyt0k5r9oYAexWQRUJVq+fwZr5RXw lVh3/QIbxKqfjBJ/m66BJTgFAiX6P6xhBbEZBcQkvp9awwSxS1zi1pP5TBBHC0gs2XOeGcIW lXj5+B8rhK0k0bjkCSvIDcwC+RJH/2pB7BKUODnzCcsERpFZSCbNQqiahaQKIqwpsX6XPkS1 osSU7ofsELaGROucuezI4gsY2VcxihanFiflphsZ6aUWZSYXF+fn6eWllmxiBEbZwS2/DXYw vnzueIhRgINRiYdXTcUgSog1say4MvcQowQHs5IIb3eTfpQQb0piZVVqUX58UWlOavEhRmkO FiVx3pOevFFCAumJJanZqakFqUUwWSYOTqkGxpikKZ4//ec73eTM7hI6fUk65lzSIl3Wfc4S S1gLeicHicxYNSFw6/nu0AszFZp3HF1R0aG06tgLO73/KydM+5By1+Nq+6QF8ysFIwtXtGRw TtszbZ1nkZHPocdFDn/lb2YzOH9gD76W2tWyXlY/j/3sjavK8VdXMXJkXhUK232FuaygvGZv jBJLcUaioRZzUXEiAOBoNMauAgAA Archived-At: Subject: Re: [dispatch] dispatching draft-campbell-sip-messaging-smime X-BeenThere: dispatch@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: DISPATCH Working Group Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2017 20:26:29 -0000 --_000_7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B6C0511DDESESSMB109erics_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 SGksDQoNCj5XZWxsLCB5b3UgbWlzc2VkIG15IHBvaW50IHRoYXQgaXQgbWlnaHQgbm90IGJlIHRo ZSAic2FtZSBwZW9wbGUiIGlmIHdlIGhhdmUgYSBtaW5pLVdHIHRoYXQgaGFzIFMvTUlNRSBpbiB0 aGUgV0cgbmFtZS4NCj5JIHdvdWxkIHRoaW5rIHRoYXQgd2UgbWlnaHQgZ2V0IGEgZmV3IG1vcmUg c2VjdXJpdHkgZm9sa3MgZnJvbSB0aGUgb3V0c2V0IGFzIG9wcG9zZWQgdG8gZ2V0dGluZyAqYWRk aXRpb25hbCogaW5wdXQgZnJvbSBzZWN1cml0eQ0KPmZvbGtzIGR1cmluZyBJRVRGIExDIHdoZW4g dGhleSBkbyB0aGUgU2VjRElSIHJldmlldy4gIEFnYWluLCBJIHJlYWxpemUgdGhhdCB3aXRoIFJ1 c3MgYXMgYSBhdXRob3IsIHRoZXJlIGxpa2VseSB3aWxsIG5vdCBiZSBpc3N1ZXMuDQo+QnV0LCBJ IHN0aWxsIHRoaW5rIGJyb2FkZXIgaW5wdXQgZnJvbSB0aGUgc2VjdXJpdHkgY29tbXVuaXR5IGlz bid0IGEgYmFkIHRoaW5nLg0KDQpBbGwgSSBjYXJlIGFib3V0IGlzIG1ha2luZyBzdXJlIHRoYXQg dGhlIGFwcHJvcHJpYXRlIHBlb3BsZSBnZXQgdG8gcmV2aWV3IHRoZSBkb2N1bWVudC4gSeKAmWxs IGxldCBvdGhlcnMgZGVjaWRlIHdoYXQgdGhlIGJlc3Qgd2F5IHRvIGFjaGlldmUgdGhhdCBpcyA6 KQ0KDQpSZWdhcmRzLA0KDQpDaHJpc3Rlcg0KDQoNCk9uIFR1ZSwgRGVjIDEyLCAyMDE3IGF0IDI6 NDggQU0sIENocmlzdGVyIEhvbG1iZXJnIDxjaHJpc3Rlci5ob2xtYmVyZ0Blcmljc3Nvbi5jb208 bWFpbHRvOmNocmlzdGVyLmhvbG1iZXJnQGVyaWNzc29uLmNvbT4+IHdyb3RlOg0KSGksDQoNCj4g QXMgYW4gaW5kaXZpZHVhbCwgSSBoYXZlIGEgc2xpZ2h0IHByZWZlcmVuY2UgZm9yIGEgbWluaSBX RyBhcyBJIHRoaW5rIHRoYXQgd291bGQgbWFrZSBpdCBlYXNpZXIgZm9yIHRoaXMgdG8gZ2V0IG9u IHRoZSByYWRhciBvZiBzZWN1cml0eSBmb2xrcyBiZWZvcmUgaXQgZ29lcyB0aHJvdWdoIElFVEYg TEMuICBUaGUNCj4gd2hvbGUgbm90aW9uIG9mIGEgbWluaSBXRyB3YXMgdG8gcHJvdmlkZSBhIGxp Z2h0d2VpZ2h0IHByb2Nlc3MgZm9yIHdvcmsgdGhhdCBtaWdodCBiZSBvZiBhIGJpdCBicm9hZGVy IGludGVyZXN0IHRoYW4gb3RoZXIgZHJhZnRzIHdlIGhhdmUgQUQgc3BvbnNvcmVkIGluIHRoZSBw YXN0IHRoYXQgYXJlIG9mIG1vcmUgaW50ZXJlc3QgdG8gYSBuYXJyb3dlciBncm91cCAoZS5nLiwg M0dQUCBzcGVjaWZpYyBkb2NzKS4NCj4NCj4gQW5kLCB5ZWFoLCBJIGtub3cgdGhhdCB3ZSBsaWtl bHkgaGF2ZSB0aGUgbW9zdCBleHBlcnQgcGVvcGxlIGluIElFVEYgd29ya2luZyBvbiB0aGlzLCBi dXQgaW4gdGhlIHNwaXJpdCBvZiB0cmFuc3BhcmVuY3kgSSBkb24ndCBuZWNlc3NhcmlseSB0aGlu ayB0aGF0J3MgdGhlIGhpZ2hlc3QgcHJpb3JpdHkgZmFjdG9yIHdoZW4gd2UgZGV0ZXJtaW5lIGhv dyB0byBkaXNwYXRjaCB3b3JrIGl0ZW1zLg0KDQpXaGlsZSB0aGUgcHJvdG9jb2wgZXhwZXJ0cyBt YXkgYmUgaW4gSUVURiwgc29tZSBtYWpvciB1c2VycyBvZiB0aGUgcHJvdG9jb2xzIGFyZSBvdXRz aWRlIElFVEYuIEZvciBleGFtcGxlLCBJIGdvdCBmZWVkYmFjayBvZiB0aGUg4oCTMDAgdmVyc2lv biBieSBvbmUgb2YgbXkgR1NNQSBjb2xsZWFndWVzLCBmb3J3YXJkZWQgaXQgdG8gdGhlIGF1dGhv ciwgYW5kIGl0IGhhcyBub3cgYmVlbiBhZGRyZXNzZWQgaW4gc2VjdGlvbiA5LjEgb2YgdGhlIOKA kzAxIHZlcnNpb24uDQoNCkJ1dCBhZ2FpbiwgYXMgbG9uZyBhcyB3ZSBtYWtlIHN1cmUgdGhlIGFw cHJvcHJpYXRlIHBlb3BsZSBhcmUgbWFkZSBhd2FyZSBvZiB0aGUgZHJhZnQsIGFuZCB3aWxsIGhh dmUgYW4gb3Bwb3J0dW5pdHkgdG8gcmV2aWV3IGl0IGJlZm9yZSBwdWJsaWNhdGlvbiwgSSBoYXZl IG5vIHN0cm9uZyBmZWVsaW5ncyB3aGV0aGVyIGl04oCZcyBkb25lIGFzIEFEIHNwb25zb3JlZCwg d2l0aGluIGEgbWluaS1XRyBvciB3aXRoaW4gYW4gZXhpc3RpbmcgV0cuIFNhbWUgcGVvcGxlIDop DQoNClJlZ2FyZHMsDQoNCkNocmlzdGVyDQoNCg0KDQpPbiBUaHUsIERlYyA3LCAyMDE3IGF0IDk6 NDAgUE0sIEN1bGxlbiBKZW5uaW5ncyA8Zmx1ZmZ5QGlpaS5jYTxtYWlsdG86Zmx1ZmZ5QGlpaS5j YT4+IHdyb3RlOg0KDQo+RnJvbSBhbGwgdGhlIGRpc2N1c3Npb25zIHNvIGZhciwgaXQgc2VlbXMg dGhlIG1vc3QgbG9naWNhbCBwYXRoIGZvciB0aGlzIGRyYWZ0IGlzIEFEIHNwb25zb3IuIElmIGFu eW9uZSBoYXMgYW55IHN0cm9uZyBvYmplY3Rpb25zIHRvIHRoaXMgZHJhZnQgYmVpbmcgQUQgc3Bv bnNvcmVkLCBwbGVhc2UgbGV0IHVzIGtub3cgYnkgRGVjIDE0Lg0KDQpUaGFua3MsIEN1bGxlbiA8 d2l0aCBteSBjby1jaGFpciBoYXQgb24+DQoNCg0KX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19f X19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX18NCmRpc3BhdGNoIG1haWxpbmcgbGlzdA0KZGlzcGF0Y2hAaWV0 Zi5vcmc8bWFpbHRvOmRpc3BhdGNoQGlldGYub3JnPg0KaHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuaWV0Zi5vcmcvbWFp bG1hbi9saXN0aW5mby9kaXNwYXRjaA0KDQoNCg== --_000_7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B6C0511DDESESSMB109erics_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 PGh0bWwgeG1sbnM6dj0idXJuOnNjaGVtYXMtbWljcm9zb2Z0LWNvbTp2bWwiIHhtbG5zOm89InVy bjpzY2hlbWFzLW1pY3Jvc29mdC1jb206b2ZmaWNlOm9mZmljZSIgeG1sbnM6dz0idXJuOnNjaGVt YXMtbWljcm9zb2Z0LWNvbTpvZmZpY2U6d29yZCIgeG1sbnM6bT0iaHR0cDovL3NjaGVtYXMubWlj cm9zb2Z0LmNvbS9vZmZpY2UvMjAwNC8xMi9vbW1sIiB4bWxucz0iaHR0cDovL3d3dy53My5vcmcv VFIvUkVDLWh0bWw0MCI+DQo8aGVhZD4NCjxtZXRhIGh0dHAtZXF1aXY9IkNvbnRlbnQtVHlwZSIg Y29udGVudD0idGV4dC9odG1sOyBjaGFyc2V0PXV0Zi04Ij4NCjxtZXRhIG5hbWU9IkdlbmVyYXRv ciIgY29udGVudD0iTWljcm9zb2Z0IFdvcmQgMTUgKGZpbHRlcmVkIG1lZGl1bSkiPg0KPHN0eWxl PjwhLS0NCi8qIEZvbnQgRGVmaW5pdGlvbnMgKi8NCkBmb250LWZhY2UNCgl7Zm9udC1mYW1pbHk6 IkNhbWJyaWEgTWF0aCI7DQoJcGFub3NlLTE6MiA0IDUgMyA1IDQgNiAzIDIgNDt9DQpAZm9udC1m YWNlDQoJe2ZvbnQtZmFtaWx5OkNhbGlicmk7DQoJcGFub3NlLTE6MiAxNSA1IDIgMiAyIDQgMyAy IDQ7fQ0KLyogU3R5bGUgRGVmaW5pdGlvbnMgKi8NCnAuTXNvTm9ybWFsLCBsaS5Nc29Ob3JtYWws IGRpdi5Nc29Ob3JtYWwNCgl7bWFyZ2luOjBjbTsNCgltYXJnaW4tYm90dG9tOi4wMDAxcHQ7DQoJ Zm9udC1zaXplOjEyLjBwdDsNCglmb250LWZhbWlseToiVGltZXMgTmV3IFJvbWFuIixzZXJpZjt9 DQphOmxpbmssIHNwYW4uTXNvSHlwZXJsaW5rDQoJe21zby1zdHlsZS1wcmlvcml0eTo5OTsNCglj b2xvcjpibHVlOw0KCXRleHQtZGVjb3JhdGlvbjp1bmRlcmxpbmU7fQ0KYTp2aXNpdGVkLCBzcGFu Lk1zb0h5cGVybGlua0ZvbGxvd2VkDQoJe21zby1zdHlsZS1wcmlvcml0eTo5OTsNCgljb2xvcjpw dXJwbGU7DQoJdGV4dC1kZWNvcmF0aW9uOnVuZGVybGluZTt9DQpzcGFuLkVtYWlsU3R5bGUxNw0K CXttc28tc3R5bGUtdHlwZTpwZXJzb25hbDsNCglmb250LWZhbWlseToiQ2FsaWJyaSIsc2Fucy1z ZXJpZjsNCgljb2xvcjojMUY0OTdEO30NCnNwYW4uRW1haWxTdHlsZTE4DQoJe21zby1zdHlsZS10 eXBlOnBlcnNvbmFsLWNvbXBvc2U7DQoJZm9udC1mYW1pbHk6IkNhbGlicmkiLHNhbnMtc2VyaWY7 DQoJY29sb3I6d2luZG93dGV4dDt9DQouTXNvQ2hwRGVmYXVsdA0KCXttc28tc3R5bGUtdHlwZTpl eHBvcnQtb25seTsNCglmb250LWZhbWlseToiQ2FsaWJyaSIsc2Fucy1zZXJpZjsNCgltc28tZmFy ZWFzdC1sYW5ndWFnZTpFTi1VUzt9DQpAcGFnZSBXb3JkU2VjdGlvbjENCgl7c2l6ZTo2MTIuMHB0 IDc5Mi4wcHQ7DQoJbWFyZ2luOjcyLjBwdCA3Mi4wcHQgNzIuMHB0IDcyLjBwdDt9DQpkaXYuV29y ZFNlY3Rpb24xDQoJe3BhZ2U6V29yZFNlY3Rpb24xO30NCi0tPjwvc3R5bGU+PCEtLVtpZiBndGUg bXNvIDldPjx4bWw+DQo8bzpzaGFwZWRlZmF1bHRzIHY6ZXh0PSJlZGl0IiBzcGlkbWF4PSIxMDI2 IiAvPg0KPC94bWw+PCFbZW5kaWZdLS0+PCEtLVtpZiBndGUgbXNvIDldPjx4bWw+DQo8bzpzaGFw ZWxheW91dCB2OmV4dD0iZWRpdCI+DQo8bzppZG1hcCB2OmV4dD0iZWRpdCIgZGF0YT0iMSIgLz4N CjwvbzpzaGFwZWxheW91dD48L3htbD48IVtlbmRpZl0tLT4NCjwvaGVhZD4NCjxib2R5IGxhbmc9 IkVOLUdCIiBsaW5rPSJibHVlIiB2bGluaz0icHVycGxlIj4NCjxkaXYgY2xhc3M9IldvcmRTZWN0 aW9uMSI+DQo8cCBjbGFzcz0iTXNvTm9ybWFsIj48c3BhbiBzdHlsZT0iZm9udC1zaXplOjExLjBw dDtmb250LWZhbWlseTomcXVvdDtDYWxpYnJpJnF1b3Q7LHNhbnMtc2VyaWY7Y29sb3I6IzFGNDk3 RDttc28tZmFyZWFzdC1sYW5ndWFnZTpFTi1VUyI+SGksPG86cD48L286cD48L3NwYW4+PC9wPg0K PHAgY2xhc3M9Ik1zb05vcm1hbCI+PG86cD4mbmJzcDs8L286cD48L3A+DQo8ZGl2Pg0KPHAgY2xh c3M9Ik1zb05vcm1hbCI+Jmd0O1dlbGwsIHlvdSBtaXNzZWQgbXkgcG9pbnQgdGhhdCBpdCBtaWdo dCBub3QgYmUgdGhlICZxdW90O3NhbWUgcGVvcGxlJnF1b3Q7IGlmIHdlIGhhdmUgYSBtaW5pLVdH IHRoYXQgaGFzIFMvTUlNRSBpbiB0aGUgV0cgbmFtZS4mbmJzcDsNCjxicj4NCiZndDtJIHdvdWxk IHRoaW5rIHRoYXQgd2UgbWlnaHQgZ2V0IGEgZmV3IG1vcmUgc2VjdXJpdHkgZm9sa3MgZnJvbSB0 aGUgb3V0c2V0IGFzIG9wcG9zZWQgdG8gZ2V0dGluZyAqYWRkaXRpb25hbCogaW5wdXQgZnJvbSBz ZWN1cml0eTxicj4NCiZndDtmb2xrcyBkdXJpbmcgSUVURiBMQyB3aGVuIHRoZXkgZG8gdGhlIFNl Y0RJUiByZXZpZXcuJm5ic3A7IEFnYWluLCBJIHJlYWxpemUgdGhhdCB3aXRoIFJ1c3MgYXMgYSBh dXRob3IsIHRoZXJlIGxpa2VseSB3aWxsIG5vdCBiZSBpc3N1ZXMuDQo8YnI+DQomZ3Q7QnV0LCBJ IHN0aWxsIHRoaW5rIGJyb2FkZXIgaW5wdXQgZnJvbSB0aGUgc2VjdXJpdHkgY29tbXVuaXR5IGlz bid0IGEgYmFkIHRoaW5nLiZuYnNwOzxvOnA+PC9vOnA+PC9wPg0KPHAgY2xhc3M9Ik1zb05vcm1h bCI+PHNwYW4gc3R5bGU9ImZvbnQtc2l6ZToxMS4wcHQ7Zm9udC1mYW1pbHk6JnF1b3Q7Q2FsaWJy aSZxdW90OyxzYW5zLXNlcmlmIj48bzpwPiZuYnNwOzwvbzpwPjwvc3Bhbj48L3A+DQo8cCBjbGFz cz0iTXNvTm9ybWFsIj48c3BhbiBzdHlsZT0iZm9udC1zaXplOjExLjBwdDtmb250LWZhbWlseTom cXVvdDtDYWxpYnJpJnF1b3Q7LHNhbnMtc2VyaWYiPkFsbCBJIGNhcmUgYWJvdXQgaXMgbWFraW5n IHN1cmUgdGhhdCB0aGUgYXBwcm9wcmlhdGUgcGVvcGxlIGdldCB0byByZXZpZXcgdGhlIGRvY3Vt ZW50LiBJ4oCZbGwgbGV0IG90aGVycyBkZWNpZGUgd2hhdCB0aGUgYmVzdCB3YXkgdG8gYWNoaWV2 ZSB0aGF0IGlzIDopPG86cD48L286cD48L3NwYW4+PC9wPg0KPHAgY2xhc3M9Ik1zb05vcm1hbCI+ PHNwYW4gc3R5bGU9ImZvbnQtc2l6ZToxMS4wcHQ7Zm9udC1mYW1pbHk6JnF1b3Q7Q2FsaWJyaSZx dW90OyxzYW5zLXNlcmlmIj48bzpwPiZuYnNwOzwvbzpwPjwvc3Bhbj48L3A+DQo8cCBjbGFzcz0i TXNvTm9ybWFsIj48c3BhbiBzdHlsZT0iZm9udC1zaXplOjExLjBwdDtmb250LWZhbWlseTomcXVv dDtDYWxpYnJpJnF1b3Q7LHNhbnMtc2VyaWYiPlJlZ2FyZHMsPG86cD48L286cD48L3NwYW4+PC9w Pg0KPHAgY2xhc3M9Ik1zb05vcm1hbCI+PHNwYW4gc3R5bGU9ImZvbnQtc2l6ZToxMS4wcHQ7Zm9u dC1mYW1pbHk6JnF1b3Q7Q2FsaWJyaSZxdW90OyxzYW5zLXNlcmlmIj48bzpwPiZuYnNwOzwvbzpw Pjwvc3Bhbj48L3A+DQo8cCBjbGFzcz0iTXNvTm9ybWFsIj48c3BhbiBzdHlsZT0iZm9udC1zaXpl OjExLjBwdDtmb250LWZhbWlseTomcXVvdDtDYWxpYnJpJnF1b3Q7LHNhbnMtc2VyaWYiPkNocmlz dGVyPG86cD48L286cD48L3NwYW4+PC9wPg0KPHAgY2xhc3M9Ik1zb05vcm1hbCI+PHNwYW4gc3R5 bGU9ImZvbnQtc2l6ZToxMS4wcHQ7Zm9udC1mYW1pbHk6JnF1b3Q7Q2FsaWJyaSZxdW90OyxzYW5z LXNlcmlmIj48bzpwPiZuYnNwOzwvbzpwPjwvc3Bhbj48L3A+DQo8L2Rpdj4NCjxkaXY+DQo8cCBj bGFzcz0iTXNvTm9ybWFsIj48bzpwPiZuYnNwOzwvbzpwPjwvcD4NCjxkaXY+DQo8cCBjbGFzcz0i TXNvTm9ybWFsIj5PbiBUdWUsIERlYyAxMiwgMjAxNyBhdCAyOjQ4IEFNLCBDaHJpc3RlciBIb2xt YmVyZyAmbHQ7PGEgaHJlZj0ibWFpbHRvOmNocmlzdGVyLmhvbG1iZXJnQGVyaWNzc29uLmNvbSIg dGFyZ2V0PSJfYmxhbmsiPmNocmlzdGVyLmhvbG1iZXJnQGVyaWNzc29uLmNvbTwvYT4mZ3Q7IHdy b3RlOjxvOnA+PC9vOnA+PC9wPg0KPGJsb2NrcXVvdGUgc3R5bGU9ImJvcmRlcjpub25lO2JvcmRl ci1sZWZ0OnNvbGlkICNDQ0NDQ0MgMS4wcHQ7cGFkZGluZzowY20gMGNtIDBjbSA2LjBwdDttYXJn aW4tbGVmdDo0LjhwdDttYXJnaW4tcmlnaHQ6MGNtIj4NCjxkaXY+DQo8ZGl2Pg0KPHAgY2xhc3M9 Ik1zb05vcm1hbCI+PHNwYW4gc3R5bGU9ImZvbnQtc2l6ZToxMC41cHQ7Zm9udC1mYW1pbHk6JnF1 b3Q7Q2FsaWJyaSZxdW90OyxzYW5zLXNlcmlmO2NvbG9yOmJsYWNrIj5IaSw8bzpwPjwvbzpwPjwv c3Bhbj48L3A+DQo8L2Rpdj4NCjxkaXY+DQo8cCBjbGFzcz0iTXNvTm9ybWFsIj48c3BhbiBzdHls ZT0iZm9udC1zaXplOjEwLjVwdDtmb250LWZhbWlseTomcXVvdDtDYWxpYnJpJnF1b3Q7LHNhbnMt c2VyaWY7Y29sb3I6YmxhY2siPjxvOnA+Jm5ic3A7PC9vOnA+PC9zcGFuPjwvcD4NCjwvZGl2Pg0K PGRpdj4NCjxkaXY+DQo8ZGl2Pg0KPHAgY2xhc3M9Ik1zb05vcm1hbCI+PHNwYW4gc3R5bGU9ImZv bnQtc2l6ZToxMC41cHQ7Zm9udC1mYW1pbHk6JnF1b3Q7Q2FsaWJyaSZxdW90OyxzYW5zLXNlcmlm O2NvbG9yOmJsYWNrIj4mZ3Q7IEFzIGFuIGluZGl2aWR1YWwsIEkgaGF2ZSBhIHNsaWdodCBwcmVm ZXJlbmNlIGZvciBhIG1pbmkgV0cgYXMgSSB0aGluayB0aGF0IHdvdWxkIG1ha2UgaXQgZWFzaWVy IGZvciB0aGlzIHRvIGdldCBvbiB0aGUgcmFkYXIgb2Ygc2VjdXJpdHkgZm9sa3MgYmVmb3JlIGl0 IGdvZXMNCiB0aHJvdWdoIElFVEYgTEMuJm5ic3A7IFRoZTxvOnA+PC9vOnA+PC9zcGFuPjwvcD4N CjwvZGl2Pg0KPC9kaXY+DQo8L2Rpdj4NCjxkaXY+DQo8cCBjbGFzcz0iTXNvTm9ybWFsIj48c3Bh biBzdHlsZT0iZm9udC1zaXplOjEwLjVwdDtmb250LWZhbWlseTomcXVvdDtDYWxpYnJpJnF1b3Q7 LHNhbnMtc2VyaWY7Y29sb3I6YmxhY2siPiZndDsgd2hvbGUgbm90aW9uIG9mIGEgbWluaSBXRyB3 YXMgdG8gcHJvdmlkZSBhIGxpZ2h0d2VpZ2h0IHByb2Nlc3MgZm9yIHdvcmsgdGhhdCBtaWdodCBi ZSBvZiBhIGJpdCBicm9hZGVyIGludGVyZXN0IHRoYW4gb3RoZXIgZHJhZnRzIHdlIGhhdmUgQUQg c3BvbnNvcmVkIGluIHRoZQ0KIHBhc3QgdGhhdCBhcmUgb2YgbW9yZSBpbnRlcmVzdCB0byBhIG5h cnJvd2VyIGdyb3VwIChlLmcuLCAzR1BQIHNwZWNpZmljIGRvY3MpLiZuYnNwOzxvOnA+PC9vOnA+ PC9zcGFuPjwvcD4NCjwvZGl2Pg0KPGRpdj4NCjxkaXY+DQo8cCBjbGFzcz0iTXNvTm9ybWFsIj48 c3BhbiBzdHlsZT0iZm9udC1zaXplOjEwLjVwdDtmb250LWZhbWlseTomcXVvdDtDYWxpYnJpJnF1 b3Q7LHNhbnMtc2VyaWY7Y29sb3I6YmxhY2siPiZndDs8bzpwPiZuYnNwOzwvbzpwPjwvc3Bhbj48 L3A+DQo8L2Rpdj4NCjxkaXY+DQo8cCBjbGFzcz0iTXNvTm9ybWFsIj48c3BhbiBzdHlsZT0iZm9u dC1zaXplOjEwLjVwdDtmb250LWZhbWlseTomcXVvdDtDYWxpYnJpJnF1b3Q7LHNhbnMtc2VyaWY7 Y29sb3I6YmxhY2siPiZndDsgQW5kLCB5ZWFoLCBJIGtub3cgdGhhdCB3ZSBsaWtlbHkgaGF2ZSB0 aGUgbW9zdCBleHBlcnQgcGVvcGxlIGluIElFVEYgd29ya2luZyBvbiB0aGlzLCBidXQgaW4gdGhl IHNwaXJpdCBvZiB0cmFuc3BhcmVuY3kgSSBkb24ndCBuZWNlc3NhcmlseSB0aGluayB0aGF0J3Mg dGhlIGhpZ2hlc3QNCiBwcmlvcml0eSBmYWN0b3Igd2hlbiB3ZSBkZXRlcm1pbmUgaG93IHRvIGRp c3BhdGNoIHdvcmsgaXRlbXMuPG86cD48L286cD48L3NwYW4+PC9wPg0KPC9kaXY+DQo8L2Rpdj4N CjxkaXY+DQo8cCBjbGFzcz0iTXNvTm9ybWFsIj48c3BhbiBzdHlsZT0iZm9udC1zaXplOjEwLjVw dDtmb250LWZhbWlseTomcXVvdDtDYWxpYnJpJnF1b3Q7LHNhbnMtc2VyaWY7Y29sb3I6YmxhY2si PjxvOnA+Jm5ic3A7PC9vOnA+PC9zcGFuPjwvcD4NCjwvZGl2Pg0KPGRpdj4NCjxwIGNsYXNzPSJN c29Ob3JtYWwiPjxzcGFuIHN0eWxlPSJmb250LXNpemU6MTAuNXB0O2ZvbnQtZmFtaWx5OiZxdW90 O0NhbGlicmkmcXVvdDssc2Fucy1zZXJpZjtjb2xvcjpibGFjayI+V2hpbGUgdGhlIHByb3RvY29s IGV4cGVydHMgbWF5IGJlIGluIElFVEYsIHNvbWUgbWFqb3IgdXNlcnMgb2YgdGhlIHByb3RvY29s cyBhcmUgb3V0c2lkZSBJRVRGLiBGb3IgZXhhbXBsZSwgSSBnb3QgZmVlZGJhY2sgb2YgdGhlIOKA kzAwIHZlcnNpb24gYnkgb25lIG9mIG15IEdTTUENCiBjb2xsZWFndWVzLCBmb3J3YXJkZWQgaXQg dG8gdGhlIGF1dGhvciwgYW5kIGl0IGhhcyBub3cgYmVlbiBhZGRyZXNzZWQgaW4gc2VjdGlvbiA5 LjEgb2YgdGhlIOKAkzAxIHZlcnNpb24uPG86cD48L286cD48L3NwYW4+PC9wPg0KPC9kaXY+DQo8 ZGl2Pg0KPHAgY2xhc3M9Ik1zb05vcm1hbCI+PHNwYW4gc3R5bGU9ImZvbnQtc2l6ZToxMC41cHQ7 Zm9udC1mYW1pbHk6JnF1b3Q7Q2FsaWJyaSZxdW90OyxzYW5zLXNlcmlmO2NvbG9yOmJsYWNrIj48 bzpwPiZuYnNwOzwvbzpwPjwvc3Bhbj48L3A+DQo8L2Rpdj4NCjxkaXY+DQo8cCBjbGFzcz0iTXNv Tm9ybWFsIj48c3BhbiBzdHlsZT0iZm9udC1zaXplOjEwLjVwdDtmb250LWZhbWlseTomcXVvdDtD YWxpYnJpJnF1b3Q7LHNhbnMtc2VyaWY7Y29sb3I6YmxhY2siPkJ1dCBhZ2FpbiwgYXMgbG9uZyBh cyB3ZSBtYWtlIHN1cmUgdGhlIGFwcHJvcHJpYXRlIHBlb3BsZSBhcmUgbWFkZSBhd2FyZSBvZiB0 aGUgZHJhZnQsIGFuZCB3aWxsIGhhdmUgYW4gb3Bwb3J0dW5pdHkgdG8gcmV2aWV3IGl0IGJlZm9y ZSBwdWJsaWNhdGlvbiwgSSBoYXZlIG5vIHN0cm9uZw0KIGZlZWxpbmdzIHdoZXRoZXIgaXTigJlz IGRvbmUgYXMgQUQgc3BvbnNvcmVkLCB3aXRoaW4gYSBtaW5pLVdHIG9yIHdpdGhpbiBhbiBleGlz dGluZyBXRy4gU2FtZSBwZW9wbGUgOik8bzpwPjwvbzpwPjwvc3Bhbj48L3A+DQo8L2Rpdj4NCjxk aXY+DQo8cCBjbGFzcz0iTXNvTm9ybWFsIj48c3BhbiBzdHlsZT0iZm9udC1zaXplOjEwLjVwdDtm b250LWZhbWlseTomcXVvdDtDYWxpYnJpJnF1b3Q7LHNhbnMtc2VyaWY7Y29sb3I6YmxhY2siPjxv OnA+Jm5ic3A7PC9vOnA+PC9zcGFuPjwvcD4NCjwvZGl2Pg0KPGRpdj4NCjxwIGNsYXNzPSJNc29O b3JtYWwiPjxzcGFuIHN0eWxlPSJmb250LXNpemU6MTAuNXB0O2ZvbnQtZmFtaWx5OiZxdW90O0Nh bGlicmkmcXVvdDssc2Fucy1zZXJpZjtjb2xvcjpibGFjayI+UmVnYXJkcyw8bzpwPjwvbzpwPjwv c3Bhbj48L3A+DQo8L2Rpdj4NCjxkaXY+DQo8cCBjbGFzcz0iTXNvTm9ybWFsIj48c3BhbiBzdHls ZT0iZm9udC1zaXplOjEwLjVwdDtmb250LWZhbWlseTomcXVvdDtDYWxpYnJpJnF1b3Q7LHNhbnMt c2VyaWY7Y29sb3I6YmxhY2siPjxvOnA+Jm5ic3A7PC9vOnA+PC9zcGFuPjwvcD4NCjwvZGl2Pg0K PGRpdj4NCjxwIGNsYXNzPSJNc29Ob3JtYWwiPjxzcGFuIHN0eWxlPSJmb250LXNpemU6MTAuNXB0 O2ZvbnQtZmFtaWx5OiZxdW90O0NhbGlicmkmcXVvdDssc2Fucy1zZXJpZjtjb2xvcjpibGFjayI+ Q2hyaXN0ZXI8bzpwPjwvbzpwPjwvc3Bhbj48L3A+DQo8L2Rpdj4NCjxkaXY+DQo8cCBjbGFzcz0i TXNvTm9ybWFsIj48c3BhbiBzdHlsZT0iZm9udC1zaXplOjEwLjVwdDtmb250LWZhbWlseTomcXVv dDtDYWxpYnJpJnF1b3Q7LHNhbnMtc2VyaWY7Y29sb3I6YmxhY2siPjxvOnA+Jm5ic3A7PC9vOnA+ PC9zcGFuPjwvcD4NCjwvZGl2Pg0KPGRpdj4NCjxwIGNsYXNzPSJNc29Ob3JtYWwiPjxzcGFuIHN0 eWxlPSJmb250LXNpemU6MTAuNXB0O2ZvbnQtZmFtaWx5OiZxdW90O0NhbGlicmkmcXVvdDssc2Fu cy1zZXJpZjtjb2xvcjpibGFjayI+PG86cD4mbmJzcDs8L286cD48L3NwYW4+PC9wPg0KPC9kaXY+ DQo8ZGl2Pg0KPHAgY2xhc3M9Ik1zb05vcm1hbCI+PHNwYW4gc3R5bGU9ImZvbnQtc2l6ZToxMC41 cHQ7Zm9udC1mYW1pbHk6JnF1b3Q7Q2FsaWJyaSZxdW90OyxzYW5zLXNlcmlmO2NvbG9yOmJsYWNr Ij48bzpwPiZuYnNwOzwvbzpwPjwvc3Bhbj48L3A+DQo8L2Rpdj4NCjxkaXY+DQo8ZGl2Pg0KPHAg Y2xhc3M9Ik1zb05vcm1hbCI+PHNwYW4gc3R5bGU9ImZvbnQtc2l6ZToxMC41cHQ7Zm9udC1mYW1p bHk6JnF1b3Q7Q2FsaWJyaSZxdW90OyxzYW5zLXNlcmlmO2NvbG9yOmJsYWNrIj5PbiBUaHUsIERl YyA3LCAyMDE3IGF0IDk6NDAgUE0sIEN1bGxlbiBKZW5uaW5ncyAmbHQ7PGEgaHJlZj0ibWFpbHRv OmZsdWZmeUBpaWkuY2EiIHRhcmdldD0iX2JsYW5rIj5mbHVmZnlAaWlpLmNhPC9hPiZndDsgd3Jv dGU6PG86cD48L286cD48L3NwYW4+PC9wPg0KPGJsb2NrcXVvdGUgc3R5bGU9ImJvcmRlcjpub25l O2JvcmRlci1sZWZ0OnNvbGlkICNDQ0NDQ0MgMS4wcHQ7cGFkZGluZzowY20gMGNtIDBjbSA2LjBw dDttYXJnaW4tbGVmdDo0LjhwdDttYXJnaW4tcmlnaHQ6MGNtIj4NCjxwIGNsYXNzPSJNc29Ob3Jt YWwiPjxzcGFuIHN0eWxlPSJmb250LXNpemU6MTAuNXB0O2ZvbnQtZmFtaWx5OiZxdW90O0NhbGli cmkmcXVvdDssc2Fucy1zZXJpZjtjb2xvcjpibGFjayI+PGJyPg0KJmd0O0Zyb20gYWxsIHRoZSBk aXNjdXNzaW9ucyBzbyBmYXIsIGl0IHNlZW1zIHRoZSBtb3N0IGxvZ2ljYWwgcGF0aCBmb3IgdGhp cyBkcmFmdCBpcyBBRCBzcG9uc29yLiBJZiBhbnlvbmUgaGFzIGFueSBzdHJvbmcgb2JqZWN0aW9u cyB0byB0aGlzIGRyYWZ0IGJlaW5nIEFEIHNwb25zb3JlZCwgcGxlYXNlIGxldCB1cyBrbm93IGJ5 IERlYyAxNC48YnI+DQo8YnI+DQpUaGFua3MsIEN1bGxlbiAmbHQ7d2l0aCBteSBjby1jaGFpciBo YXQgb24mZ3Q7PGJyPg0KPGJyPg0KPGJyPg0KX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19f X19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX188YnI+DQpkaXNwYXRjaCBtYWlsaW5nIGxpc3Q8YnI+DQo8YSBocmVm PSJtYWlsdG86ZGlzcGF0Y2hAaWV0Zi5vcmciIHRhcmdldD0iX2JsYW5rIj5kaXNwYXRjaEBpZXRm Lm9yZzwvYT48YnI+DQo8YSBocmVmPSJodHRwczovL3d3dy5pZXRmLm9yZy9tYWlsbWFuL2xpc3Rp bmZvL2Rpc3BhdGNoIiB0YXJnZXQ9Il9ibGFuayI+aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuaWV0Zi5vcmcvbWFpbG1h bi9saXN0aW5mby9kaXNwYXRjaDwvYT48bzpwPjwvbzpwPjwvc3Bhbj48L3A+DQo8L2Jsb2NrcXVv dGU+DQo8L2Rpdj4NCjxwIGNsYXNzPSJNc29Ob3JtYWwiPjxzcGFuIHN0eWxlPSJmb250LXNpemU6 MTAuNXB0O2ZvbnQtZmFtaWx5OiZxdW90O0NhbGlicmkmcXVvdDssc2Fucy1zZXJpZjtjb2xvcjpi bGFjayI+PG86cD4mbmJzcDs8L286cD48L3NwYW4+PC9wPg0KPC9kaXY+DQo8L2Rpdj4NCjwvYmxv Y2txdW90ZT4NCjwvZGl2Pg0KPHAgY2xhc3M9Ik1zb05vcm1hbCI+PG86cD4mbmJzcDs8L286cD48 L3A+DQo8L2Rpdj4NCjwvZGl2Pg0KPC9ib2R5Pg0KPC9odG1sPg0K --_000_7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B6C0511DDESESSMB109erics_-- From nobody Wed Dec 13 19:37:35 2017 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dispatch@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dispatch@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7230D1276AF for ; Wed, 13 Dec 2017 19:37:34 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.934 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.934 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id RAGfHcpwG_Xg for ; Wed, 13 Dec 2017 19:37:33 -0800 (PST) Received: from resqmta-ch2-06v.sys.comcast.net (resqmta-ch2-06v.sys.comcast.net [IPv6:2001:558:fe21:29:69:252:207:38]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3C44A126DD9 for ; Wed, 13 Dec 2017 19:37:33 -0800 (PST) Received: from resomta-ch2-04v.sys.comcast.net ([69.252.207.100]) by resqmta-ch2-06v.sys.comcast.net with ESMTP id PKKye28Ed5x03PKKyeFrqF; Thu, 14 Dec 2017 03:37:32 +0000 Received: from hobgoblin.ariadne.com ([IPv6:2601:192:4603:9471:222:fbff:fe91:d396]) by resomta-ch2-04v.sys.comcast.net with SMTP id PKKxe2ojNnshJPKKxecb8P; Thu, 14 Dec 2017 03:37:32 +0000 Received: from hobgoblin.ariadne.com (hobgoblin.ariadne.com [127.0.0.1]) by hobgoblin.ariadne.com (8.14.7/8.14.7) with ESMTP id vBE3bU0f021460; Wed, 13 Dec 2017 22:37:30 -0500 Received: (from worley@localhost) by hobgoblin.ariadne.com (8.14.7/8.14.7/Submit) id vBE3bUdw021457; Wed, 13 Dec 2017 22:37:30 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: hobgoblin.ariadne.com: worley set sender to worley@alum.mit.edu using -f From: worley@ariadne.com (Dale R. Worley) To: dispatch@ietf.org, draft-atarius-dispatch-meid-urn-as-instanceid.all@ietf.org In-Reply-To: <201712111543.vBBFhFPn040652@givry.fdupont.fr> (Francis.Dupont@fdupont.fr) Sender: worley@ariadne.com (Dale R. Worley) Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2017 22:37:29 -0500 Message-ID: <87zi6mx9mu.fsf@hobgoblin.ariadne.com> X-CMAE-Envelope: MS4wfD+xwXyVjih1EmEfhJdErfEQYQLHo4EyI2MxBwVxbokmug93MWdFDUv1VZnXkTFKKDWuKp0ytwqibYLncsu5Y0vA/PsAqAqyzZDek56GZyA/y3ll+qD2 HFrJAPA4F0xTHsnO9671SxHRBQRYoqdCavEvEkHMcwVhXO7nh7OUJbUYU87QouX8W15061RS+LLiKzjpT87RJaxQY0plL3c6tyMaYJfnTSggCZa16nV6fA6b JBYCP7RDtrnA63hSGCAKqw== Archived-At: Subject: [dispatch] draft-atarius-dispatch-meid-urn-as-instanceid and RFC 7255 X-BeenThere: dispatch@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: DISPATCH Working Group Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2017 03:37:34 -0000 IMHO, this draft should describe its relationship with RFC 7255 in more detail: What is the difference between MEID and IMEI? Why is an MEID URN better than an IMEI URN, or at least, why can MEID be used in situations when IMEI cannot? That is, what does this draft enable that RFC 7255 has not already enabled? (I'm sure these questions have a good answer, or the authors wouldn't have writte this draft, but the answers aren't in this draft.) Dale From nobody Thu Dec 14 06:22:56 2017 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dispatch@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dispatch@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ABD341293E3 for ; Thu, 14 Dec 2017 06:22:54 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.998 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.998 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id PvfS4THxgZi3 for ; Thu, 14 Dec 2017 06:22:53 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-qt0-x22b.google.com (mail-qt0-x22b.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c0d::22b]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C5C291200CF for ; Thu, 14 Dec 2017 06:22:52 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-qt0-x22b.google.com with SMTP id k19so8096363qtj.6 for ; Thu, 14 Dec 2017 06:22:52 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=goVgl54cNkpkM0bj+VpB9sEdwLuuRVbbG4SkNCq7ngw=; b=I1ktX/jXHgbWtlWj4m521RioqQMvzXkZSweYmNgL/d1JjfXvKJNAIbkUJA5FDCVy10 LrhQxPICURvllQh56QktC9ND6SbjjEc9QIxU4M8cyZtl4EuN3wYDKblUj4xq52MLve5U RmJTipNcv7gAcjW++bwfKpwmyp/EnH1JWbdSP7bxiQDMSS2pX/8kdox+OVzftik5kOZH PzZzuxyQ3dtBu2BfNLkMSHXrGF1HT9wrhQ+Lx4vP5mK3/hjFaoO0iqQ2cUZP1dOiqG+C LDqEgCOomYeb+H6h7fzuFCrztl3xHR2uhEg6SAXV5lyEg6BmgYeG61vQwLQA8sIgeWW2 C7Lg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=goVgl54cNkpkM0bj+VpB9sEdwLuuRVbbG4SkNCq7ngw=; b=bn68+3IFrVckdqlwzgOX0dt4wPSmOF+n34HNiqZ8tRx+LcWsmDiAYwlzqaiIlJT4hb osuICemfKTAkVK1Uj7aYD1h5lc5eR2LBSTkJTN3oVRqC+o/C3V0sYGoDIsAeVKJP1682 dnUINu1s9L8egUkqSEtIJHCrrnqlAZDryAaY75eNeCLACZ++SC5iSw76DG2vc5p2zNbs AVmf/uOzzunM8Lyb5gDNM2EiIb9IIsCCX6niH/POx3QS059/2MtIVgOmMkAJRilHUtyc E17kqA2+Cwj2OwPS/RTGRgu/nGf0IXB5hI6JXxzrdMteCqBn7LBfaAe6uxNs9rky7qmd Luew== X-Gm-Message-State: AKGB3mJ3d09aeX5jyO3WTkficMcMLAm2RiwHmf2ODDB9StA524+tIuOx TmAGBaOH0wwDRTUpgVVuTPcsyY6qZaAHRl5w8Y0j0Q== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACJfBot+o8QRd1UIXwS6IxrENeFEmFWooaxGMWDtKMN02Faa2ppSQs3Ko7jjfXOomiIFrEIq637GyEMgcVhTJWTH5Lc= X-Received: by 10.200.3.158 with SMTP id t30mr16310389qtg.149.1513261371920; Thu, 14 Dec 2017 06:22:51 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.237.33.1 with HTTP; Thu, 14 Dec 2017 06:22:51 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: <2A0764E1-1ADA-4510-A717-23095A4362F0@seantek.com> From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2017 06:22:51 -0800 Message-ID: To: Harald Alvestrand Cc: DISPATCH list Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="f4030435d08c86997205604d9ec5" Archived-At: Subject: Re: [dispatch] Zstandard compression X-BeenThere: dispatch@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: DISPATCH Working Group Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2017 14:22:55 -0000 --f4030435d08c86997205604d9ec5 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" On Tue, Nov 14, 2017 at 4:25 PM, Harald Alvestrand wrote: > > Yes. But I think what Sean is saying is that above and beyond that, > > you'd (in many if not most use cases) also want to know what the > > decoded octet stream is about. Otherwise, this information has to be > > transmitted on a side channel. > > One (horribly ugly) way of doing this is to have something like a > "contains" parameter: > > mime-type: application/zstandard; contains="text/plain; charset=utf-8" > > That's one form of side channel for passing the data around. Not sure if > anyone would use it. > But it's such an ugly way of doing things that it should definitely be > suggested on the media-types list, not here. > Interesting. I haven't seen this technique used before. Do other compression methods have such a mechanism described and registered? -MSK --f4030435d08c86997205604d9ec5 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Tue, Nov 14, 2017 at 4:25 PM, Harald Alvestrand <ha= rald@alvestrand.no> wrote:
>= Yes. But I think what Sean is saying is that above and beyond that,
> you'd (in many if not most use cases) also want to know what the > decoded octet stream is about. Otherwise, this information has to be > transmitted on a side channel.

One (horribly ugly) way of doing this is to have something like a "contains" parameter:

mime-type: application/zstandard; contains=3D"text/plain; charset=3Dut= f-8"

That's one form of side channel for passing the data around. Not sure i= f
anyone would use it.
But it's such an ugly way of doing things that it should definitely be<= br> suggested on the media-types list, not here.

Interesting.=C2=A0 I haven't seen this technique used before.=C2= =A0 Do other compression methods have such a mechanism described and regist= ered?

-MSK
--f4030435d08c86997205604d9ec5-- From nobody Thu Dec 14 06:48:48 2017 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dispatch@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dispatch@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4E2411293D6 for ; Thu, 14 Dec 2017 06:48:46 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.199 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.199 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Y1OWsUkMXh40 for ; Thu, 14 Dec 2017 06:48:44 -0800 (PST) Received: from mork.alvestrand.no (mork.alvestrand.no [158.38.152.117]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 89F361293F9 for ; Thu, 14 Dec 2017 06:48:36 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mork.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 156EC7C3627; Thu, 14 Dec 2017 15:48:35 +0100 (CET) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at alvestrand.no Received: from mork.alvestrand.no ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mork.alvestrand.no [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id uWTBj21zG5Ip; Thu, 14 Dec 2017 15:48:33 +0100 (CET) Received: from [IPv6:2001:470:de0a:1::5ea] (unknown [IPv6:2001:470:de0a:1::5ea]) by mork.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 28C1A7C0C3D; Thu, 14 Dec 2017 15:48:33 +0100 (CET) To: "Murray S. Kucherawy" Cc: DISPATCH list References: <2A0764E1-1ADA-4510-A717-23095A4362F0@seantek.com> From: Harald Alvestrand Message-ID: <20c3e34b-a1f8-8aaa-81dd-88d8191d192c@alvestrand.no> Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2017 15:48:32 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Archived-At: Subject: Re: [dispatch] Zstandard compression X-BeenThere: dispatch@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: DISPATCH Working Group Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2017 14:48:46 -0000 Den 14. des. 2017 15:22, skrev Murray S. Kucherawy: > On Tue, Nov 14, 2017 at 4:25 PM, Harald Alvestrand > wrote: > > > Yes. But I think what Sean is saying is that above and beyond that, > > you'd (in many if not most use cases) also want to know what the > > decoded octet stream is about. Otherwise, this information has to be > > transmitted on a side channel. > > One (horribly ugly) way of doing this is to have something like a > "contains" parameter: > > mime-type: application/zstandard; contains="text/plain; charset=utf-8" > > That's one form of side channel for passing the data around. Not sure if > anyone would use it. > But it's such an ugly way of doing things that it should definitely be > suggested on the media-types list, not here. > > > Interesting.  I haven't seen this technique used before.  Do other > compression methods have such a mechanism described and registered? > No - it's been quite controversial the times (long ago) that it's been proposed. I think it was suggested for RFC 6713 (application/gzip), but it didn't survive the discussion. Probably that RFC should be taken as precedent. From nobody Thu Dec 14 07:02:45 2017 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dispatch@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dispatch@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 34C4D126D3F for ; Thu, 14 Dec 2017 07:02:43 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.999 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1536-bit key) header.d=iecc.com header.b=4rPvQppa; dkim=pass (1536-bit key) header.d=taugh.com header.b=XWJmT2sY Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id thvPIWgdjYjh for ; Thu, 14 Dec 2017 07:02:38 -0800 (PST) Received: from gal.iecc.com (gal.iecc.com [IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126:0:43:6f73:7461]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 560E21293DF for ; Thu, 14 Dec 2017 07:02:38 -0800 (PST) Received: (qmail 72172 invoked from network); 14 Dec 2017 15:02:36 -0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=iecc.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=119ea.5a32928c.k1712; bh=6Vv8OUMCxjgjkj4mqLqF2qf/DwR9E2m4htdLWeL4H58=; b=4rPvQppacNHb5i6wQcnlQMArWoEqET7jVJbou0EwSFHEWZE+3noNbJEhdOyuVyc5VrG595w5bOWADMJPjsWecOOWG2B49C2GPdN8ky7afqFiGmP7XslPTks3mQO37D1vNMvfSLx4vNT/X3XTV5xlkFwMXuOwyTCkJtIZ5q7xsOisW7OOjrcxGMjV26VPIy565YPQ6cj3B7cVPfyam6v86Km6SPppMcfOo6YfmKKqHBeNrETtrikD/3YYOyUklN9e DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=taugh.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=119ea.5a32928c.k1712; bh=6Vv8OUMCxjgjkj4mqLqF2qf/DwR9E2m4htdLWeL4H58=; b=XWJmT2sYR9r8n4IM9L+Ht57/CsZy/cfFRlvHRUTWGGAypS0nPKFDvnKM3Rh17ChjIAeWwFWBhqFHA+HvaEexmdue2WNK/7u68Q56KB/7S02EGLroJIbWZ3YZUtXDaR7u2ZYrp1Rd7XHZKLlYEVZYmO1ImOXEb2UT0sO2OwLS6WnRFLa43JGgYC/8qT6uG2LzB+Bv1jNXkerBdwq2u+6QnSEa3pwBsxGAZp6LbvqCN+jVr7q1RbQjQRzP1hbnA367 Received: from ary.qy ([IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126::78:696d:6170]) by imap.iecc.com ([IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126::78:696d:6170]) with ESMTP via TCP6; 14 Dec 2017 15:02:36 -0000 Received: by ary.qy (Postfix, from userid 501) id 7963C17F7274; Thu, 14 Dec 2017 10:02:35 -0500 (EST) Date: 14 Dec 2017 10:02:35 -0500 Message-Id: <20171214150236.7963C17F7274@ary.qy> From: "John Levine" To: dispatch@ietf.org Cc: harald@alvestrand.no In-Reply-To: <20c3e34b-a1f8-8aaa-81dd-88d8191d192c@alvestrand.no> Organization: Taughannock Networks X-Headerized: yes Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-transfer-encoding: 8bit Archived-At: Subject: Re: [dispatch] Zstandard compression X-BeenThere: dispatch@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: DISPATCH Working Group Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2017 15:02:43 -0000 In article <20c3e34b-a1f8-8aaa-81dd-88d8191d192c@alvestrand.no> you write: >Den 14. des. 2017 15:22, skrev Murray S. Kucherawy: >> mime-type: application/zstandard; contains="text/plain; charset=utf-8" Ugh. >No - it's been quite controversial the times (long ago) that it's been >proposed. > >I think it was suggested for RFC 6713 (application/gzip), but it didn't >survive the discussion. Probably that RFC should be taken as precedent. As far as I recall It didn't come up for 6713 which whizzed through and had a concrete use case of DMARC aggregate reports where everyone knew that the contents were XML. Perhaps it came up for RFCs 1950, 1951, and 1952 which describe the underlying encoding. R's, John From nobody Fri Dec 15 13:37:52 2017 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dispatch@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dispatch@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0EAD7128B8D for ; Fri, 15 Dec 2017 13:37:51 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.699 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.699 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id yjTEIn1631F8 for ; Fri, 15 Dec 2017 13:37:49 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-qk0-x231.google.com (mail-qk0-x231.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c09::231]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E44521241FC for ; Fri, 15 Dec 2017 13:37:48 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-qk0-x231.google.com with SMTP id i130so12051733qke.4 for ; Fri, 15 Dec 2017 13:37:48 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=Eet+30AmkehdLB85gMQMX/fxhj6G51LC42VDwwLL4kQ=; b=r7z1ku9EV5LYq3sygu0oHXLkgNaqCX3dp3v2kA36N2Xfl9Av+CpCdcK4o89RDcF2WB VlfTBhExcnrMDNcp8CBQgAp+sbGJyNMZlGksnRXnpLp4pJDtovqf1sWCHYefLu728Pf4 PP/q0ZrzrwinDheV0CA7KnPl7CoROTsQ2avthuZTiBDrp1YN23SpBT6l1cGCb1gcjr74 CsrrPF9nnssSsb1DMAg7/fgkuY/o+ckkdEO5w/jMgDc39MGuKNUZaU/tcdqS08jPOc+T DydCAoi9h/7+5oy7wb/GSZlQ579RLDlx+F0jN9iqWnXPc9YmQTk2qzPDcLBwvYHlYYjm Jp8A== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=Eet+30AmkehdLB85gMQMX/fxhj6G51LC42VDwwLL4kQ=; b=Xje7sfvQN56+7brDp1ZHA/EORZCMayz5NWIaqqrpZOJbgQr4e6kMuUGKL/mGG3VEgX HDbaxbRX/+EGSXLEMREnni3u5fmu7IDF0MVKPP10ydJi/d8Jf/3LLBZoB9G4IuDLlude 9H2gLdhC3yDQAVjr1QOzm3ywGWfHMKVU6U+At7JXHpFPa3cn3IPqZvD9WqpUiPJ7NGNI C+GT+jlDrtk8eeykVltI/y0deKd30+iAmvxSMcBAfM7A5PLPkduLKFETYn6fhXoLoQO8 jNS+jIrsDfUj87Fs+3l26owfIOgDGJriNUEQo6lqBMRHjtjDtO2PVSuKWWPiUErX2w+E 2W2A== X-Gm-Message-State: AKGB3mKlGztDQCfBqr+AVwlxFSDXph6zrQ9+qibWy184KPfF7to9loAk tFZzu0R6J9243jH4XuDAu6A9uM6kAQk0uwiSbJSuxQ== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACJfBotZgCDq0SSJqgssS/gRAgF5Crj/ATRlkBBl6Zt5d8baVN5yMjybxCuoRj10i9veeRFWCNgznN5XR5VUBh1I5uM= X-Received: by 10.55.100.141 with SMTP id y135mr22149517qkb.242.1513373867313; Fri, 15 Dec 2017 13:37:47 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.140.39.72 with HTTP; Fri, 15 Dec 2017 13:37:46 -0800 (PST) From: Mary Barnes Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2017 15:37:46 -0600 Message-ID: To: DISPATCH Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="94eb2c05984ec60e06056067cf22" Archived-At: Subject: [dispatch] Deadlines for IETF-101 X-BeenThere: dispatch@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: DISPATCH Working Group Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2017 21:37:51 -0000 --94eb2c05984ec60e06056067cf22 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Hi all, As noted at IETF-100, the deadlines for IETF-101 are as follows: - January 31, 2018: Cutoff date for BoF submissions - February 10, 2018: Submit a proposal - February 16, 2018: Cutoff for charter proposals for topics - February 21, 2018: Announcement of topics that have been dispatched for IETF 101 - March 3, 2018: Draft submission deadline - March 17-22, 2018: IETF 101 Further details: https://tools.ietf.org/wg/dispatch/trac/wiki Note, the official deadlines for IETF-101 have not yet published, so the above dates are based on past deadlines relative to the scheduled meeting date. Regards, Mary DISPATCH WG co-chair --94eb2c05984ec60e06056067cf22 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi all,

As noted at IETF-100, the deadl= ines for IETF-101 are as follows:
  • January 31, 2018: = Cutoff date for BoF submissions
  • February 10, 2018: Submit a pro= posal
  • February 16, 2018: Cutoff for charter proposals for topic= s
  • February 21, 2018: Announcement of topics that have been dispatch= ed for IETF 101
  • March 3, 2018: Draft submission deadline
  • Ma= rch 17-22, 2018: IETF 101

Note, the official deadli= nes for IETF-101 have not yet published, so the above dates are based on pa= st deadlines relative to the scheduled meeting date.

Regards,
Mary
DISPATCH WG co-chair

--94eb2c05984ec60e06056067cf22-- From nobody Mon Dec 18 12:06:15 2017 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dispatch@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dispatch@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A1BED12422F for ; Mon, 18 Dec 2017 12:06:12 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.01 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.01 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, T_SPF_HELO_PERMERROR=0.01, T_SPF_PERMERROR=0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id L2aa7TJcRTCF for ; Mon, 18 Dec 2017 12:06:10 -0800 (PST) Received: from nostrum.com (raven-v6.nostrum.com [IPv6:2001:470:d:1130::1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 33CE61205D3 for ; Mon, 18 Dec 2017 12:06:10 -0800 (PST) Received: from [10.0.1.99] (cpe-66-25-7-22.tx.res.rr.com [66.25.7.22]) (authenticated bits=0) by nostrum.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPSA id vBIK64HH074621 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128 verify=NO); Mon, 18 Dec 2017 14:06:05 -0600 (CST) (envelope-from ben@nostrum.com) X-Authentication-Warning: raven.nostrum.com: Host cpe-66-25-7-22.tx.res.rr.com [66.25.7.22] claimed to be [10.0.1.99] From: Ben Campbell Message-Id: Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_7BA02F86-7727-4D23-AA58-A7EB03F3D2F1"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.2 \(3445.5.20\)) Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2017 14:06:03 -0600 In-Reply-To: Cc: Christer Holmberg , DISPATCH list , Cullen Jennings To: Mary Barnes References: <354C4752-6EEF-4592-9BC6-5BB2F3976AB7@iii.ca> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.5.20) Archived-At: Subject: Re: [dispatch] dispatching draft-campbell-sip-messaging-smime X-BeenThere: dispatch@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: DISPATCH Working Group Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2017 20:06:13 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_7BA02F86-7727-4D23-AA58-A7EB03F3D2F1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 (Strictly as an individual contributor.) I will be surprised if there are enough participants to make even a = mini-WG worthwhile. While the discussion in Singapore shows a number of = people interested in secure messaging in general (BTW, Yay!), far fewer = were interested in participating for this particular document. I recall = 4 people (other than the authors) saying they were interested in = helping. 2 of those have already offered feedback, and IIRC one of them = was an AD (but I could be mistaken on that part.) Once you assign (a) WG = chair(s), that's not many participants left to do the work. I see the point that a WG with S/MIME in the name may bring in some more = security experts. But I=E2=80=99m guessing we are talking about 1 or 2, = not dozens. Similar levels of review could be achieved for an AD = sponsored draft by the AD asking for some targeted reviews. But in any case, I am happy to accept whatever approach DISPATCH and the = remaining ART ADs prefer. (I will of course recuse myself from that = decision.) Thanks! Ben. > On Dec 12, 2017, at 12:07 PM, Mary Barnes = wrote: >=20 > Well, you missed my point that it might not be the "same people" if we = have a mini-WG that has S/MIME in the WG name. I would think that we = might get a few more security folks from the outset as opposed to = getting *additional* input from security folks during IETF LC when they = do the SecDIR review. Again, I realize that with Russ as a author, = there likely will not be issues. But, I still think broader input from = the security community isn't a bad thing. >=20 > Mary. >=20 > On Tue, Dec 12, 2017 at 2:48 AM, Christer Holmberg = wrote: > Hi, >=20 > > As an individual, I have a slight preference for a mini WG as I = think that would make it easier for this to get on the radar of security = folks before it goes through IETF LC. The > > whole notion of a mini WG was to provide a lightweight process for = work that might be of a bit broader interest than other drafts we have = AD sponsored in the past that are of more interest to a narrower group = (e.g., 3GPP specific docs). > > > > And, yeah, I know that we likely have the most expert people in IETF = working on this, but in the spirit of transparency I don't necessarily = think that's the highest priority factor when we determine how to = dispatch work items. >=20 > While the protocol experts may be in IETF, some major users of the = protocols are outside IETF. For example, I got feedback of the =E2=80=9300= version by one of my GSMA colleagues, forwarded it to the author, and = it has now been addressed in section 9.1 of the =E2=80=9301 version. >=20 > But again, as long as we make sure the appropriate people are made = aware of the draft, and will have an opportunity to review it before = publication, I have no strong feelings whether it=E2=80=99s done as AD = sponsored, within a mini-WG or within an existing WG. Same people :) >=20 > Regards, >=20 > Christer >=20 >=20 >=20 > On Thu, Dec 7, 2017 at 9:40 PM, Cullen Jennings wrote: >=20 > >=46rom all the discussions so far, it seems the most logical path for = this draft is AD sponsor. If anyone has any strong objections to this = draft being AD sponsored, please let us know by Dec 14. >=20 > Thanks, Cullen >=20 >=20 > _______________________________________________ > dispatch mailing list > dispatch@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dispatch >=20 >=20 > _______________________________________________ > dispatch mailing list > dispatch@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dispatch --Apple-Mail=_7BA02F86-7727-4D23-AA58-A7EB03F3D2F1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: Message signed with OpenPGP -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Comment: GPGTools - https://gpgtools.org iQIzBAEBCgAdFiEExW9rpd7ez4DexOFOgFZKbJXz1A0FAlo4H6sACgkQgFZKbJXz 1A2uZg/8DQSuZuTf460lrtJeZ1q4tnE9uw04wo3daHGmv1fRAhcAnJmAEG5HZHY2 tBkkmwAkK8UCFYifEUauGwFdt8TTs8atBJfp6L5Cjx8lslq+fUaM+NrqX4Rbqu7c BbtTn/jGa6Af3Cigpu16eoRyrk3bX66EcjL4VLsLOmR+J7VAWC39/oGa/bIp9zO+ u79A7sDBJqyldic2SHvsRLT2a2WjKm08HPp8+TRLavAjt0moU3zzFqYp0qblHZVn 0W/z/DD8dd8ZMLJiwq4hPEOga/2cI0xld+hzGcI1Jj3F63U46i1S4y+5GXmB5Ppz jK3svt4NMsWLct6/sLgB81rpj7rRsZcXf01ICTsRSk/kDHxnIQGXHNJyjXqjdOMp t2RnRSMQnNTZRlnBdadLZ5gYckgp1BJoZ5LuTdkt4JQ6DXFmF2rOtjLRyCUoy3bg pDy9CEiXiKK/gbrP29DO1fG933j40CXbR/WNaQkn2Wpaw9vgKXowAsDS6CbNiKBi AeHFPqOdV3zY+zilC3LxXMMhJkzJJrRReS/H1vAONpU6ISlDQ1z5kw/1SUukMlBT VEjoRw1Vmr90QTb4krVkY9ao2fQiscPkAuzM9BqipB+WnQvgskvVfcxEzpk5dDW4 CPPGfQtmMtmNFj5j5lX4d6Xon4Z4UPV+hO8+7cGOUTelqJw3MpQ= =Emg/ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Apple-Mail=_7BA02F86-7727-4D23-AA58-A7EB03F3D2F1-- From nobody Mon Dec 18 12:09:59 2017 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dispatch@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dispatch@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3398C12420B for ; Mon, 18 Dec 2017 12:09:58 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.011 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.011 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, T_SPF_HELO_PERMERROR=0.01, T_SPF_PERMERROR=0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id F24vUo7I3fFe for ; Mon, 18 Dec 2017 12:09:56 -0800 (PST) Received: from nostrum.com (raven-v6.nostrum.com [IPv6:2001:470:d:1130::1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5EE8F1205D3 for ; Mon, 18 Dec 2017 12:09:56 -0800 (PST) Received: from Svantevit.roach.at (cpe-70-122-154-80.tx.res.rr.com [70.122.154.80]) (authenticated bits=0) by nostrum.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPSA id vBIK9ttn074997 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128 verify=NO) for ; Mon, 18 Dec 2017 14:09:55 -0600 (CST) (envelope-from adam@nostrum.com) X-Authentication-Warning: raven.nostrum.com: Host cpe-70-122-154-80.tx.res.rr.com [70.122.154.80] claimed to be Svantevit.roach.at To: dispatch@ietf.org References: <354C4752-6EEF-4592-9BC6-5BB2F3976AB7@iii.ca> From: Adam Roach Message-ID: <4a75ce32-ab35-35de-0b17-f1d8d4797f9c@nostrum.com> Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2017 14:09:55 -0600 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.10; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------D5C7A9AA49B0A9BF00284A5E" Content-Language: en-US Archived-At: Subject: Re: [dispatch] dispatching draft-campbell-sip-messaging-smime X-BeenThere: dispatch@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: DISPATCH Working Group Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2017 20:09:58 -0000 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------D5C7A9AA49B0A9BF00284A5E Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Before I weigh in on the topic: did I miss some new information that we uncovered after DISPATCH agreed to adopt this document that would be the basis for reversing that consensus? /a On 12/18/17 2:06 PM, Ben Campbell wrote: > (Strictly as an individual contributor.) > > I will be surprised if there are enough participants to make even a mini-WG worthwhile. While the discussion in Singapore shows a number of people interested in secure messaging in general (BTW, Yay!), far fewer were interested in participating for this particular document. I recall 4 people (other than the authors) saying they were interested in helping. 2 of those have already offered feedback, and IIRC one of them was an AD (but I could be mistaken on that part.) Once you assign (a) WG chair(s), that's not many participants left to do the work. > > I see the point that a WG with S/MIME in the name may bring in some more security experts. But I’m guessing we are talking about 1 or 2, not dozens. Similar levels of review could be achieved for an AD sponsored draft by the AD asking for some targeted reviews. > > But in any case, I am happy to accept whatever approach DISPATCH and the remaining ART ADs prefer. (I will of course recuse myself from that decision.) > > Thanks! > > Ben. > > >> On Dec 12, 2017, at 12:07 PM, Mary Barnes wrote: >> >> Well, you missed my point that it might not be the "same people" if we have a mini-WG that has S/MIME in the WG name. I would think that we might get a few more security folks from the outset as opposed to getting *additional* input from security folks during IETF LC when they do the SecDIR review. Again, I realize that with Russ as a author, there likely will not be issues. But, I still think broader input from the security community isn't a bad thing. >> >> Mary. >> >> On Tue, Dec 12, 2017 at 2:48 AM, Christer Holmberg wrote: >> Hi, >> >>> As an individual, I have a slight preference for a mini WG as I think that would make it easier for this to get on the radar of security folks before it goes through IETF LC. The >>> whole notion of a mini WG was to provide a lightweight process for work that might be of a bit broader interest than other drafts we have AD sponsored in the past that are of more interest to a narrower group (e.g., 3GPP specific docs). >>> >>> And, yeah, I know that we likely have the most expert people in IETF working on this, but in the spirit of transparency I don't necessarily think that's the highest priority factor when we determine how to dispatch work items. >> While the protocol experts may be in IETF, some major users of the protocols are outside IETF. For example, I got feedback of the –00 version by one of my GSMA colleagues, forwarded it to the author, and it has now been addressed in section 9.1 of the –01 version. >> >> But again, as long as we make sure the appropriate people are made aware of the draft, and will have an opportunity to review it before publication, I have no strong feelings whether it’s done as AD sponsored, within a mini-WG or within an existing WG. Same people :) >> >> Regards, >> >> Christer >> >> >> >> On Thu, Dec 7, 2017 at 9:40 PM, Cullen Jennings wrote: >> >> >From all the discussions so far, it seems the most logical path for this draft is AD sponsor. If anyone has any strong objections to this draft being AD sponsored, please let us know by Dec 14. >> >> Thanks, Cullen >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> dispatch mailing list >> dispatch@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dispatch >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> dispatch mailing list >> dispatch@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dispatch > > > _______________________________________________ > dispatch mailing list > dispatch@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dispatch --------------D5C7A9AA49B0A9BF00284A5E Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Before I weigh in on the topic: did I miss some new information that we uncovered after DISPATCH agreed to adopt this document that would be the basis for reversing that consensus?

/a

On 12/18/17 2:06 PM, Ben Campbell wrote:
(Strictly as an individual contributor.)

I will be surprised if there are enough participants to make even a mini-WG worthwhile. While the discussion in Singapore shows a number of people interested in secure messaging in general (BTW, Yay!), far fewer were interested in participating for this particular document. I recall 4 people (other than the authors) saying they were interested in helping. 2 of those have already offered feedback, and IIRC one of them was an AD (but I could be mistaken on that part.) Once you assign (a) WG chair(s), that's not many participants left to do the work.

I see the point that a WG with S/MIME in the name may bring in some more security experts. But I’m guessing we are talking about 1 or 2, not dozens. Similar levels of review could be achieved for an AD sponsored draft by the AD asking for some targeted reviews.

But in any case, I am happy to accept whatever approach DISPATCH and the remaining ART ADs prefer. (I will of course recuse myself from that decision.)

Thanks!

Ben.



On Dec 12, 2017, at 12:07 PM, Mary Barnes <mary.ietf.barnes@gmail.com> wrote:

Well, you missed my point that it might not be the "same people" if we have a mini-WG that has S/MIME in the WG name.  I would think that we might get a few more security folks from the outset as opposed to getting *additional* input from security folks during IETF LC when they do the SecDIR review.  Again, I realize that with Russ as a author, there likely will not be issues. But, I still think broader input from the security community isn't a bad thing.

Mary.

On Tue, Dec 12, 2017 at 2:48 AM, Christer Holmberg <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com> wrote:
Hi,


As an individual, I have a slight preference for a mini WG as I think that would make it easier for this to get on the radar of security folks before it goes through IETF LC.  The
whole notion of a mini WG was to provide a lightweight process for work that might be of a bit broader interest than other drafts we have AD sponsored in the past that are of more interest to a narrower group (e.g., 3GPP specific docs).

And, yeah, I know that we likely have the most expert people in IETF working on this, but in the spirit of transparency I don't necessarily think that's the highest priority factor when we determine how to dispatch work items.

While the protocol experts may be in IETF, some major users of the protocols are outside IETF. For example, I got feedback of the –00 version by one of my GSMA colleagues, forwarded it to the author, and it has now been addressed in section 9.1 of the –01 version.

But again, as long as we make sure the appropriate people are made aware of the draft, and will have an opportunity to review it before publication, I have no strong feelings whether it’s done as AD sponsored, within a mini-WG or within an existing WG. Same people :)

Regards,

Christer



On Thu, Dec 7, 2017 at 9:40 PM, Cullen Jennings <fluffy@iii.ca> wrote:

>From all the discussions so far, it seems the most logical path for this draft is AD sponsor. If anyone has any strong objections to this draft being AD sponsored, please let us know by Dec 14.

Thanks, Cullen <with my co-chair hat on>


_______________________________________________
dispatch mailing list
dispatch@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dispatch


_______________________________________________
dispatch mailing list
dispatch@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dispatch


      

      

      

      
_______________________________________________
dispatch mailing list
dispatch@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dispatch


    

    


    

  


--------------D5C7A9AA49B0A9BF00284A5E--


From nobody Mon Dec 18 12:11:37 2017
Return-Path: 
X-Original-To: dispatch@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dispatch@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9065912422F for ; Mon, 18 Dec 2017 12:11:35 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.011
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.011 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, T_SPF_HELO_PERMERROR=0.01, T_SPF_PERMERROR=0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id xzHKb-J6sMXn for ; Mon, 18 Dec 2017 12:11:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: from nostrum.com (raven-v6.nostrum.com [IPv6:2001:470:d:1130::1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 50D881205D3 for ; Mon, 18 Dec 2017 12:11:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: from Svantevit.roach.at (cpe-70-122-154-80.tx.res.rr.com [70.122.154.80]) (authenticated bits=0) by nostrum.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPSA id vBIKBVrc075233 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128 verify=NO) for ; Mon, 18 Dec 2017 14:11:32 -0600 (CST) (envelope-from adam@nostrum.com)
X-Authentication-Warning: raven.nostrum.com: Host cpe-70-122-154-80.tx.res.rr.com [70.122.154.80] claimed to be Svantevit.roach.at
From: Adam Roach 
To: dispatch@ietf.org
References: <354C4752-6EEF-4592-9BC6-5BB2F3976AB7@iii.ca>     <4a75ce32-ab35-35de-0b17-f1d8d4797f9c@nostrum.com>
Message-ID: <76eaa4b3-7314-4410-5cec-520e4f435571@nostrum.com>
Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2017 14:11:31 -0600
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.10; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.5.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <4a75ce32-ab35-35de-0b17-f1d8d4797f9c@nostrum.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------D10B4CDCE2A4C3262F44BBFB"
Content-Language: en-US
Archived-At: 
Subject: Re: [dispatch] dispatching draft-campbell-sip-messaging-smime
X-BeenThere: dispatch@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: DISPATCH Working Group Mail List 
List-Unsubscribe: , 
List-Archive: 
List-Post: 
List-Help: 
List-Subscribe: , 
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2017 20:11:35 -0000

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------D10B4CDCE2A4C3262F44BBFB
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

Sorry; I was reading too quickly, and mixed this document up with 
draft-ietf-dispatch-javascript-mjs. Please ignore my previous message.

/a

On 12/18/17 2:09 PM, Adam Roach wrote:
> Before I weigh in on the topic: did I miss some new information that 
> we uncovered after DISPATCH agreed to adopt this document that would 
> be the basis for reversing that consensus?
>
> /a
>
> On 12/18/17 2:06 PM, Ben Campbell wrote:
>> (Strictly as an individual contributor.)
>>
>> I will be surprised if there are enough participants to make even a mini-WG worthwhile. While the discussion in Singapore shows a number of people interested in secure messaging in general (BTW, Yay!), far fewer were interested in participating for this particular document. I recall 4 people (other than the authors) saying they were interested in helping. 2 of those have already offered feedback, and IIRC one of them was an AD (but I could be mistaken on that part.) Once you assign (a) WG chair(s), that's not many participants left to do the work.
>>
>> I see the point that a WG with S/MIME in the name may bring in some more security experts. But I’m guessing we are talking about 1 or 2, not dozens. Similar levels of review could be achieved for an AD sponsored draft by the AD asking for some targeted reviews.
>>
>> But in any case, I am happy to accept whatever approach DISPATCH and the remaining ART ADs prefer. (I will of course recuse myself from that decision.)
>>
>> Thanks!
>>
>> Ben.
>>
>>
>>> On Dec 12, 2017, at 12:07 PM, Mary Barnes  wrote:
>>>
>>> Well, you missed my point that it might not be the "same people" if we have a mini-WG that has S/MIME in the WG name.  I would think that we might get a few more security folks from the outset as opposed to getting *additional* input from security folks during IETF LC when they do the SecDIR review.  Again, I realize that with Russ as a author, there likely will not be issues. But, I still think broader input from the security community isn't a bad thing.
>>>
>>> Mary.
>>>
>>> On Tue, Dec 12, 2017 at 2:48 AM, Christer Holmberg  wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>>> As an individual, I have a slight preference for a mini WG as I think that would make it easier for this to get on the radar of security folks before it goes through IETF LC.  The
>>>> whole notion of a mini WG was to provide a lightweight process for work that might be of a bit broader interest than other drafts we have AD sponsored in the past that are of more interest to a narrower group (e.g., 3GPP specific docs).
>>>>
>>>> And, yeah, I know that we likely have the most expert people in IETF working on this, but in the spirit of transparency I don't necessarily think that's the highest priority factor when we determine how to dispatch work items.
>>> While the protocol experts may be in IETF, some major users of the protocols are outside IETF. For example, I got feedback of the –00 version by one of my GSMA colleagues, forwarded it to the author, and it has now been addressed in section 9.1 of the –01 version.
>>>
>>> But again, as long as we make sure the appropriate people are made aware of the draft, and will have an opportunity to review it before publication, I have no strong feelings whether it’s done as AD sponsored, within a mini-WG or within an existing WG. Same people :)
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> Christer
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Dec 7, 2017 at 9:40 PM, Cullen Jennings  wrote:
>>>
>>> >From all the discussions so far, it seems the most logical path for this draft is AD sponsor. If anyone has any strong objections to this draft being AD sponsored, please let us know by Dec 14.
>>>
>>> Thanks, Cullen 
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> dispatch mailing list
>>> dispatch@ietf.org
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dispatch
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> dispatch mailing list
>>> dispatch@ietf.org
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dispatch
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> dispatch mailing list
>> dispatch@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dispatch
>
>


--------------D10B4CDCE2A4C3262F44BBFB
Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit


  
    
  
  
    
Sorry; I was reading too quickly, and
      mixed this document up with draft-ietf-dispatch-javascript-mjs.
      Please ignore my previous message.

      

      /a

      

      On 12/18/17 2:09 PM, Adam Roach wrote:

    

    

      
      
Before I weigh in on the topic: did I
        miss some new information that we uncovered after DISPATCH
        agreed to adopt this document that would be the basis for
        reversing that consensus?

        

        /a

        

        On 12/18/17 2:06 PM, Ben Campbell wrote:

      

      

        
(Strictly as an individual contributor.)

I will be surprised if there are enough participants to make even a mini-WG worthwhile. While the discussion in Singapore shows a number of people interested in secure messaging in general (BTW, Yay!), far fewer were interested in participating for this particular document. I recall 4 people (other than the authors) saying they were interested in helping. 2 of those have already offered feedback, and IIRC one of them was an AD (but I could be mistaken on that part.) Once you assign (a) WG chair(s), that's not many participants left to do the work.

I see the point that a WG with S/MIME in the name may bring in some more security experts. But I’m guessing we are talking about 1 or 2, not dozens. Similar levels of review could be achieved for an AD sponsored draft by the AD asking for some targeted reviews.

But in any case, I am happy to accept whatever approach DISPATCH and the remaining ART ADs prefer. (I will of course recuse myself from that decision.)

Thanks!

Ben.




        

          
On Dec 12, 2017, at 12:07 PM, Mary Barnes <mary.ietf.barnes@gmail.com> wrote:

Well, you missed my point that it might not be the "same people" if we have a mini-WG that has S/MIME in the WG name.  I would think that we might get a few more security folks from the outset as opposed to getting *additional* input from security folks during IETF LC when they do the SecDIR review.  Again, I realize that with Russ as a author, there likely will not be issues. But, I still think broader input from the security community isn't a bad thing.

Mary.

On Tue, Dec 12, 2017 at 2:48 AM, Christer Holmberg <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com> wrote:
Hi,



          

            
As an individual, I have a slight preference for a mini WG as I think that would make it easier for this to get on the radar of security folks before it goes through IETF LC.  The
whole notion of a mini WG was to provide a lightweight process for work that might be of a bit broader interest than other drafts we have AD sponsored in the past that are of more interest to a narrower group (e.g., 3GPP specific docs).

And, yeah, I know that we likely have the most expert people in IETF working on this, but in the spirit of transparency I don't necessarily think that's the highest priority factor when we determine how to dispatch work items.


          

          
While the protocol experts may be in IETF, some major users of the protocols are outside IETF. For example, I got feedback of the –00 version by one of my GSMA colleagues, forwarded it to the author, and it has now been addressed in section 9.1 of the –01 version.

But again, as long as we make sure the appropriate people are made aware of the draft, and will have an opportunity to review it before publication, I have no strong feelings whether it’s done as AD sponsored, within a mini-WG or within an existing WG. Same people :)

Regards,

Christer



On Thu, Dec 7, 2017 at 9:40 PM, Cullen Jennings <fluffy@iii.ca> wrote:

>From all the discussions so far, it seems the most logical path for this draft is AD sponsor. If anyone has any strong objections to this draft being AD sponsored, please let us know by Dec 14.

Thanks, Cullen <with my co-chair hat on>


_______________________________________________
dispatch mailing list
dispatch@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dispatch


_______________________________________________
dispatch mailing list
dispatch@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dispatch


        

        

        

        

        
_______________________________________________
dispatch mailing list
dispatch@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dispatch


      

      


      

    

    


    

  


--------------D10B4CDCE2A4C3262F44BBFB--


From nobody Tue Dec 26 15:36:00 2017
Return-Path: 
X-Original-To: dispatch@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dispatch@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A013C120227 for ; Tue, 26 Dec 2017 15:35:58 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.879
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.879 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, T_KAM_HTML_FONT_INVALID=0.01, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, T_SPF_HELO_PERMERROR=0.01, T_SPF_PERMERROR=0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id jmRxr1bMMcsX for ; Tue, 26 Dec 2017 15:35:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: from nostrum.com (raven-v6.nostrum.com [IPv6:2001:470:d:1130::1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8DFD7120046 for ; Tue, 26 Dec 2017 15:35:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [10.0.1.99] (cpe-66-25-7-22.tx.res.rr.com [66.25.7.22]) (authenticated bits=0) by nostrum.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPSA id vBQNZrrC086542 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128 verify=NO); Tue, 26 Dec 2017 17:35:55 -0600 (CST) (envelope-from ben@nostrum.com)
X-Authentication-Warning: raven.nostrum.com: Host cpe-66-25-7-22.tx.res.rr.com [66.25.7.22] claimed to be [10.0.1.99]
From: Ben Campbell 
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_1705AC35-4849-4FFF-96DC-E75CB71285FB"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.2 \(3445.5.20\))
Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2017 17:35:47 -0600
References: <151433088151.29737.17976082294843913152.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Cc: Russ Housley 
To: DISPATCH list 
Message-Id: <05317F89-EEB5-4E8D-8ADD-3073FBF619FF@nostrum.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.5.20)
Archived-At: 
Subject: [dispatch] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-campbell-sip-messaging-smime-02.txt
X-BeenThere: dispatch@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: DISPATCH Working Group Mail List 
List-Unsubscribe: , 
List-Archive: 
List-Post: 
List-Help: 
List-Subscribe: , 
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2017 23:35:59 -0000

--Apple-Mail=_1705AC35-4849-4FFF-96DC-E75CB71285FB
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
	boundary="Apple-Mail=_8B78B316-9237-4253-89A9-1E3E62CCFFB8"


--Apple-Mail=_8B78B316-9237-4253-89A9-1E3E62CCFFB8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset=utf-8

(as an individual contributor)

Hi,

Here=E2=80=99s version 02 of draft-campbell-sip-messaging-smime. This =
version includes the examples, and attempts to address the feedback we =
have received so far. As always, further feedback is welcome.

Thanks!

Ben.

> Begin forwarded message:
>=20
> From: internet-drafts@ietf.org
> Subject: New Version Notification for =
draft-campbell-sip-messaging-smime-02.txt
> Date: December 26, 2017 at 5:28:01 PM CST
> To: "Ben Campbell" , "Russ Housley" =

>=20
>=20
> A new version of I-D, draft-campbell-sip-messaging-smime-02.txt
> has been successfully submitted by Ben Campbell and posted to the
> IETF repository.
>=20
> Name:		draft-campbell-sip-messaging-smime
> Revision:	02
> Title:		Securing Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) based =
Messaging with S/MIME
> Document date:	2017-12-26
> Group:		Individual Submission
> Pages:		36
> URL:            =
https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-campbell-sip-messaging-smime-02=
.txt
> Status:         =
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-campbell-sip-messaging-smime/
> Htmlized:       =
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-campbell-sip-messaging-smime-02
> Htmlized:       =
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-campbell-sip-messaging-smime-0=
2
> Diff:           =
https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=3Ddraft-campbell-sip-messaging-smime-02
>=20
> Abstract:
>   Mobile messaging applications used with the Session Initiation
>   Protocol (SIP) commonly use some combination of the SIP MESSAGE
>   method and the Message Session Relay Protocol (MSRP).  While these
>   provide mechanisms for hop-by-hop security, neither natively =
provides
>   end-to-end protection.  This document offers guidance on how to
>   provide end-to-end authentication, integrity protection, and
>   confidentiality using the Secure/Multipurpose Internet Mail
>   Extensions (S/MIME).  It updates and provides clarifications for RFC
>   3261, RFC 3428, and RFC 4975.
>=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
> Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of =
submission
> until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.
>=20
> The IETF Secretariat
>=20


--Apple-Mail=_8B78B316-9237-4253-89A9-1E3E62CCFFB8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset=utf-8

(as =
an individual contributor)

Hi,

Here=E2=80=99s version 02 of draft-campbell-sip-messaging-smime. This version includes the =
examples, and attempts to address the feedback we have received so far. =
As always, further feedback is welcome.

Thanks!

Ben.

Begin forwarded =
message:

From: =
internet-drafts@ietf.org
Subject: =
New Version =
Notification for draft-campbell-sip-messaging-smime-02.txt
Date: =
December 26, 2017 at 5:28:01 PM =
CST
To: =
"Ben Campbell" <ben@nostrum.com>, =
"Russ Housley" <housley@vigilsec.com>


A new version =
of I-D, draft-campbell-sip-messaging-smime-02.txt
has been =
successfully submitted by Ben Campbell and posted to the
IETF repository.

Name:		=
draft-campbell-sip-messaging-smime
Revision:	02
Title:=
		=
Securing Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) based Messaging with =
S/MIME
Document date:	2017-12-26
Group:=
		=
Individual Submission
Pages:		36
URL: =
           https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-campbell-sip-messagi=
ng-smime-02.txt
Status: =
        https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-campbell-sip-messaging-s=
mime/
Htmlized:       https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-campbell-sip-messaging-smime-=
02
Htmlized:       https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-campbell-sip-messag=
ing-smime-02
Diff: =
          https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=3Ddraft-campbell-sip-messagin=
g-smime-02

Abstract:
 =
  Mobile messaging applications used with the Session =
Initiation
   Protocol (SIP) commonly use some =
combination of the SIP MESSAGE
   method and the =
Message Session Relay Protocol (MSRP).  While these
 =
  provide mechanisms for hop-by-hop security, neither natively =
provides
   end-to-end protection.  This =
document offers guidance on how to
   provide =
end-to-end authentication, integrity protection, and
 =
  confidentiality using the Secure/Multipurpose Internet =
Mail
   Extensions (S/MIME).  It updates =
and provides clarifications for RFC
   3261, RFC =
3428, and RFC 4975.




Please note that it may take a couple of =
minutes from the time of submission
until the htmlized =
version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.

The IETF =
Secretariat


=

--Apple-Mail=_8B78B316-9237-4253-89A9-1E3E62CCFFB8--

--Apple-Mail=_1705AC35-4849-4FFF-96DC-E75CB71285FB
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename=signature.asc
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature;
	name=signature.asc
Content-Description: Message signed with OpenPGP

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Comment: GPGTools - https://gpgtools.org
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=6oLs
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--Apple-Mail=_1705AC35-4849-4FFF-96DC-E75CB71285FB--