From turners@ieca.com Mon May 2 07:54:28 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: isms@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: isms@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C3387E073A for ; Mon, 2 May 2011 07:54:28 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.513 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.513 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.084, BAYES_00=-2.599, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id zInux+xTMkvV for ; Mon, 2 May 2011 07:54:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nm16-vm0.bullet.mail.bf1.yahoo.com (nm16-vm0.bullet.mail.bf1.yahoo.com [98.139.212.253]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id ADB00E072F for ; Mon, 2 May 2011 07:54:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [98.139.212.146] by nm16.bullet.mail.bf1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 02 May 2011 14:54:24 -0000 Received: from [98.139.212.242] by tm3.bullet.mail.bf1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 02 May 2011 14:54:24 -0000 Received: from [127.0.0.1] by omp1051.mail.bf1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 02 May 2011 14:54:24 -0000 X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: 448067.34068.bm@omp1051.mail.bf1.yahoo.com Received: (qmail 84247 invoked from network); 2 May 2011 14:54:24 -0000 Received: from dhcp-guest-ams5-144-254-113-69.cisco.com (turners@198.180.150.234 with plain) by smtp104.biz.mail.bf1.yahoo.com with SMTP; 02 May 2011 07:54:24 -0700 PDT X-Yahoo-SMTP: ZrP3VLSswBDL75pF8ymZHDSu9B.vcMfDPgLJ X-YMail-OSG: iIT2CbcVM1nFfzMfuAvzNcdtGuqK1d0TGNsdzDxgrHKJoSF yXI3UkneVI.tp6rJAs1jyGM_47abYUvwkdeKlTEl0fYLfuP2zhbeKnL6s2XN GoMrBi8nl9wAjfgmqmx595xgSKBA3Wkgscl.Bd70CDc8S6QzOIUAkljogJ57 rbk6Kz7gBLU2PzPFXaySF_.MlhcmUSNnKyteUSfzegDtiKFyxvzgUN_uxfso Loh5aGqiium0j3CzZHfO5NUKXFjZl2NFYZ_3IjjKvztJ1EpSRdcn13Ucrx02 9ImnI0vR8_rYTYrtEgOf.eI37x5mSpFY3Dp78NarRwE6._M2s1FZDSOtuMpb JC_c95CuNJBwloegkBHIY_Q-- X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3 Message-ID: <4DBEC59F.2030902@ieca.com> Date: Mon, 02 May 2011 16:54:23 +0200 From: Sean Turner User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; en-US; rv:1.9.2.17) Gecko/20110414 Lightning/1.0b2 Thunderbird/3.1.10 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: isms@ietf.org References: <20110419211456.203DAE084A@ietfc.amsl.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20110430150731.029f3fd8@resistor.net> In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.2.20110430150731.029f3fd8@resistor.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Isms] Last Call: rfc5953 (Transport Layer Security (TLS) Transport Model for the Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP)) to Draft Standard X-BeenThere: isms@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Mailing list for the ISMS working group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 02 May 2011 14:54:28 -0000 On 5/1/11 12:41 AM, SM wrote: > At 14:14 19-04-2011, The IESG wrote: >> The IESG has received a request from the isms WG (isms) to consider the >> following document: >> >> - 'Transport Layer Security (TLS) Transport Model for the Simple Network >> Management Protocol (SNMP) ' >> RFC 5953 as a Draft Standard >> >> The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits >> final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the >> ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2011-05-03. Exceptionally, >> comments may be sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please >> retain the beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting. >> >> This specification contains eight normative references to standards >> track documents of lower maturity: RFCs 1033, 3490, 3584, 4347, 4366, >> 5246, 5280, and 5952. > > In Section 7: > > "A hostname is always in US-ASCII (as per [RFC1033]); > internationalized hostnames are encoded in US-ASCII as domain > names after transformation via the ToASCII operation specified > in [RFC3490]." > > As a quick comment, RFC 1033 is a down-ref. A better reference is RFC > 1123. As it is part of STD 3, a down-ref is no longer needed. The > reference to RFC 3490 could be updated to RFC 5890. That also avoids a > down-ref in a Draft Standard to a document that has an Obsolete status. As SM noted, the reference to RFC 3490 needs to be updated. In fact, I know the Apps ADs will place a DISCUSS on this particular point based on some exchanges about a DKIM draft on a similar topic. The change is slightly more complicated than replacing the references because ToASCII went bye-bye in RFC 5890. After some exchanges with an Apps AD, the following change would "work" (this very similar to the changes proposed by DKIM to their draft) - and "work" means won't force a recycle at DS: OLD: A hostname is always in US-ASCII (as per [RFC1033]); internationalized hostnames are encoded in US-ASCII as domain names after transformation via the ToASCII operation specified in [RFC3490]. The ToASCII operation MUST be performed with the UseSTD3ASCIIRules flag set. The hostname is followed by a colon ':' (US-ASCII character 0x3A) and a decimal port number in US-ASCII. The name SHOULD be fully qualified whenever possible. NEW: A hostname is always in US-ASCII (as per [RFC1033]); internationalized hostnames are encoded as A-labels as specified in [RFC5890]. The hostname is followed by a colon ':' (US-ASCII character 0x3A) and a decimal port number in US-ASCII. The name SHOULD be fully qualified whenever possible. FYI I also asked about setting the UseSTD3ASCIIRules flag and Pete said it was completely unnecessary as far as he could tell. That's why I just dropped it. Does anybody object to this change? (It's perfectly okay to object to these words. We'll just need to work some other text out with Pete/Peter). What do others feel about the reference change from RFC 1033 to 1123. Are there any technical reasons to not make this change? As a result of the change for the 3490 reference (and maybe 1033 references), either a new draft is needed or I need to enter an RFC editor note.* I'm willing to enter these changes as RFC editor notes. Just let me know which path you'd like to follow. spt * The new draft or RFC editor note will need to include the editorial errata filed against RFC 5953. From j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de Mon May 2 08:07:02 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: isms@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: isms@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4CE2BE06AD for ; Mon, 2 May 2011 08:07:02 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -103.157 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.157 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.092, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id pn0hf-46Nqs5 for ; Mon, 2 May 2011 08:07:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.jacobs-university.de (hermes.jacobs-university.de [212.201.44.23]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 27162E0695 for ; Mon, 2 May 2011 08:07:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (demetrius3.jacobs-university.de [212.201.44.48]) by hermes.jacobs-university.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 81ACC20BF7; Mon, 2 May 2011 17:07:00 +0200 (CEST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at jacobs-university.de Received: from hermes.jacobs-university.de ([212.201.44.23]) by localhost (demetrius3.jacobs-university.de [212.201.44.32]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id j9ZLQj9749cB; Mon, 2 May 2011 17:06:59 +0200 (CEST) Received: from elstar.local (elstar.jacobs.jacobs-university.de [10.50.231.133]) by hermes.jacobs-university.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8610E20BF2; Mon, 2 May 2011 17:06:59 +0200 (CEST) Received: by elstar.local (Postfix, from userid 501) id CBED3185718B; Mon, 2 May 2011 17:06:53 +0200 (CEST) Date: Mon, 2 May 2011 17:06:53 +0200 From: Juergen Schoenwaelder To: Sean Turner Message-ID: <20110502150653.GA1312@elstar.local> Mail-Followup-To: Sean Turner , isms@ietf.org References: <20110419211456.203DAE084A@ietfc.amsl.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20110430150731.029f3fd8@resistor.net> <4DBEC59F.2030902@ieca.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4DBEC59F.2030902@ieca.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Cc: isms@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Isms] Last Call: rfc5953 (Transport Layer Security (TLS) Transport Model for the Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP)) to Draft Standard X-BeenThere: isms@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: Juergen Schoenwaelder List-Id: Mailing list for the ISMS working group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 02 May 2011 15:07:02 -0000 On Mon, May 02, 2011 at 04:54:23PM +0200, Sean Turner wrote: > On 5/1/11 12:41 AM, SM wrote: > >At 14:14 19-04-2011, The IESG wrote: > >>The IESG has received a request from the isms WG (isms) to consider the > >>following document: > >> > >>- 'Transport Layer Security (TLS) Transport Model for the Simple Network > >>Management Protocol (SNMP) ' > >>RFC 5953 as a Draft Standard > >> > >>The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits > >>final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the > >>ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2011-05-03. Exceptionally, > >>comments may be sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please > >>retain the beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting. > >> > >>This specification contains eight normative references to standards > >>track documents of lower maturity: RFCs 1033, 3490, 3584, 4347, 4366, > >>5246, 5280, and 5952. > > > >In Section 7: > > > >"A hostname is always in US-ASCII (as per [RFC1033]); > >internationalized hostnames are encoded in US-ASCII as domain > >names after transformation via the ToASCII operation specified > >in [RFC3490]." > > > >As a quick comment, RFC 1033 is a down-ref. A better reference is RFC > >1123. As it is part of STD 3, a down-ref is no longer needed. The > >reference to RFC 3490 could be updated to RFC 5890. That also avoids a > >down-ref in a Draft Standard to a document that has an Obsolete status. > > As SM noted, the reference to RFC 3490 needs to be updated. In > fact, I know the Apps ADs will place a DISCUSS on this particular > point based on some exchanges about a DKIM draft on a similar topic. > The change is slightly more complicated than replacing the > references because ToASCII went bye-bye in RFC 5890. After some > exchanges with an Apps AD, the following change would "work" (this > very similar to the changes proposed by DKIM to their draft) - and > "work" means won't force a recycle at DS: > > OLD: > > A hostname is always in US-ASCII (as per [RFC1033]); > internationalized hostnames are encoded in US-ASCII as domain > names after transformation via the ToASCII operation specified > in [RFC3490]. The ToASCII operation MUST be performed with the > UseSTD3ASCIIRules flag set. The hostname is followed by a > colon ':' (US-ASCII character 0x3A) and a decimal port number > in US-ASCII. The name SHOULD be fully qualified whenever > possible. > > NEW: > > A hostname is always in US-ASCII (as per [RFC1033]); > internationalized hostnames are encoded as A-labels as specified > in [RFC5890]. The hostname is followed by a > colon ':' (US-ASCII character 0x3A) and a decimal port number > in US-ASCII. The name SHOULD be fully qualified whenever > possible. So you kept [RFC1033] instead of the suggested [RFC1123] by intention or was this an accident? > FYI I also asked about setting the UseSTD3ASCIIRules flag and Pete > said it was completely unnecessary as far as he could tell. That's > why I just dropped it. > > Does anybody object to this change? (It's perfectly okay to object > to these words. We'll just need to work some other text out with > Pete/Peter). > > What do others feel about the reference change from RFC 1033 to > 1123. Are there any technical reasons to not make this change? > > As a result of the change for the 3490 reference (and maybe 1033 > references), either a new draft is needed or I need to enter an RFC > editor note.* I'm willing to enter these changes as RFC editor > notes. Just let me know which path you'd like to follow. > > spt > > * The new draft or RFC editor note will need to include the > editorial errata filed against RFC 5953. So you are saying we have to republish RFC 5953 in order to make this change in order to advance? /js -- Juergen Schoenwaelder Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH Phone: +49 421 200 3587 Campus Ring 1, 28759 Bremen, Germany Fax: +49 421 200 3103 From sm@resistor.net Sat Apr 30 16:26:52 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: isms@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: isms@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BCCAEE06E7; Sat, 30 Apr 2011 16:26:52 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id v0HIJHBkm7io; Sat, 30 Apr 2011 16:26:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 169A8E0593; Sat, 30 Apr 2011 16:26:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from subman.resistor.net (IDENT:sm@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.4/8.14.5.Beta0) with ESMTP id p3UNQbu7023592; Sat, 30 Apr 2011 16:26:41 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=opendkim.org; s=mail2010; t=1304206003; bh=VqNu3n3vUUefMc2nFhaviAxojX6gkyf+nz1NkLqk3VU=; h=Message-Id:X-Mailer:Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To: References:Mime-Version:Content-Type; b=WiqAx0xQyiJ8wJG1/TZKHTdWuQENOtLqZA2zM5d9kCvm/srgEO+/fUM8+aZNYhZd4 xoxInkAcHnkrE9v2VZMpNK1dxD4y4gF87LeQceI6XaXzYg+9t+aRB7fHYkXJAZpQOl rCM78O0zRkY3J3eu7GyWAQ2Litw1TbWirQ4Gafd8= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=resistor.net; s=mail; t=1304206003; bh=VqNu3n3vUUefMc2nFhaviAxojX6gkyf+nz1NkLqk3VU=; h=Message-Id:X-Mailer:Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To: References:Mime-Version:Content-Type; b=cXX11dQ8WzuO/ImZup+qehevYfgdHQSUHw5VqWuf9bgunERMar7kLSq+XBzhQOuhr KrSfPVZzHCnQO5pyz9Y6d761SkleBA5R0ZWU/Eh3fvQbQF8nw4c1VLTYeZI6OAbmBW D3Z56tszX0US138JTRs0gElzVro3d1k3eDajhG4k= Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20110430150731.029f3fd8@resistor.net> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6 Date: Sat, 30 Apr 2011 15:41:15 -0700 To: ietf@ietf.org From: SM In-Reply-To: <20110419211456.203DAE084A@ietfc.amsl.com> References: <20110419211456.203DAE084A@ietfc.amsl.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 02 May 2011 11:40:30 -0700 Cc: isms@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Isms] Last Call: rfc5953 (Transport Layer Security (TLS) Transport Model for the Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP)) to Draft Standard X-BeenThere: isms@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Mailing list for the ISMS working group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 30 Apr 2011 23:26:52 -0000 At 14:14 19-04-2011, The IESG wrote: >The IESG has received a request from the isms WG (isms) to consider the >following document: > >- 'Transport Layer Security (TLS) Transport Model for the Simple Network > Management Protocol (SNMP) ' > RFC 5953 as a Draft Standard > >The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits >final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the >ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2011-05-03. Exceptionally, >comments may be sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please >retain the beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting. > >This specification contains eight normative references to standards >track documents of lower maturity: RFCs 1033, 3490, 3584, 4347, 4366, >5246, 5280, and 5952. In Section 7: "A hostname is always in US-ASCII (as per [RFC1033]); internationalized hostnames are encoded in US-ASCII as domain names after transformation via the ToASCII operation specified in [RFC3490]." As a quick comment, RFC 1033 is a down-ref. A better reference is RFC 1123. As it is part of STD 3, a down-ref is no longer needed. The reference to RFC 3490 could be updated to RFC 5890. That also avoids a down-ref in a Draft Standard to a document that has an Obsolete status. Regards, -sm From turners@ieca.com Mon May 2 23:43:51 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: isms@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: isms@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5199FE073E for ; Mon, 2 May 2011 23:43:51 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.517 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.517 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.081, BAYES_00=-2.599, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 1EgA-WyO0RuE for ; Mon, 2 May 2011 23:43:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nm7.bullet.mail.sp2.yahoo.com (nm7.bullet.mail.sp2.yahoo.com [98.139.91.77]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 9EF84E06E1 for ; Mon, 2 May 2011 23:43:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [98.139.91.63] by nm7.bullet.mail.sp2.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 03 May 2011 06:43:47 -0000 Received: from [98.139.91.10] by tm3.bullet.mail.sp2.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 03 May 2011 06:43:47 -0000 Received: from [127.0.0.1] by omp1010.mail.sp2.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 03 May 2011 06:43:47 -0000 X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: 412674.86487.bm@omp1010.mail.sp2.yahoo.com Received: (qmail 10516 invoked from network); 3 May 2011 06:43:47 -0000 Received: from dhcp-guest-ams5-144-254-113-95.cisco.com (turners@198.180.150.234 with plain) by smtp112.biz.mail.sp1.yahoo.com with SMTP; 02 May 2011 23:43:46 -0700 PDT X-Yahoo-SMTP: ZrP3VLSswBDL75pF8ymZHDSu9B.vcMfDPgLJ X-YMail-OSG: lYORkBgVM1k0qJImPlug4If6BVTjfRKdwIN7Pa98A3z166T OoqAYhcxeAp3oP9c3mqB8LSAwwMB.7brrF5KcEk8xFi0gi51TEKhooHJJDsx R8262TbvNVzT.y.HBcb3eLl8Q9md5EaBfiA4QGVtRAtlcHd2QjYmT9k4OamW ZtzmAuiRk2HxzhwrvPNzsMuYD3gVf3GPdYD_7Vv9yTm2Vy7PgpA49_.R9wLz CK_KCHacjolFBFR4SzgliIsBtWB8m7glQb1KBGJV6hnMNk4gdXiB7wHe0LoE 1ue72QNqFMfy8HHeLluw66FBqVwHiuyKYBSFipxgDoVOvyA28Brn6nNvchk2 wdOziijc8d0SkpdTU5Cyd7vdaC_sOErJHkSp46V.o X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3 Message-ID: <4DBFA420.2060901@ieca.com> Date: Tue, 03 May 2011 08:43:44 +0200 From: Sean Turner User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; en-US; rv:1.9.2.17) Gecko/20110414 Lightning/1.0b2 Thunderbird/3.1.10 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: isms@ietf.org References: <20110419211456.203DAE084A@ietfc.amsl.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20110430150731.029f3fd8@resistor.net> <4DBEC59F.2030902@ieca.com> <20110502150653.GA1312@elstar.local> In-Reply-To: <20110502150653.GA1312@elstar.local> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Isms] Last Call: rfc5953 (Transport Layer Security (TLS) Transport Model for the Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP)) to Draft Standard X-BeenThere: isms@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Mailing list for the ISMS working group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 03 May 2011 06:43:51 -0000 On 5/2/11 5:06 PM, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote: > On Mon, May 02, 2011 at 04:54:23PM +0200, Sean Turner wrote: >> On 5/1/11 12:41 AM, SM wrote: >>> At 14:14 19-04-2011, The IESG wrote: >>>> The IESG has received a request from the isms WG (isms) to consider the >>>> following document: >>>> >>>> - 'Transport Layer Security (TLS) Transport Model for the Simple Network >>>> Management Protocol (SNMP) ' >>>> RFC 5953 as a Draft Standard >>>> >>>> The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits >>>> final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the >>>> ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2011-05-03. Exceptionally, >>>> comments may be sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please >>>> retain the beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting. >>>> >>>> This specification contains eight normative references to standards >>>> track documents of lower maturity: RFCs 1033, 3490, 3584, 4347, 4366, >>>> 5246, 5280, and 5952. >>> >>> In Section 7: >>> >>> "A hostname is always in US-ASCII (as per [RFC1033]); >>> internationalized hostnames are encoded in US-ASCII as domain >>> names after transformation via the ToASCII operation specified >>> in [RFC3490]." >>> >>> As a quick comment, RFC 1033 is a down-ref. A better reference is RFC >>> 1123. As it is part of STD 3, a down-ref is no longer needed. The >>> reference to RFC 3490 could be updated to RFC 5890. That also avoids a >>> down-ref in a Draft Standard to a document that has an Obsolete status. >> >> As SM noted, the reference to RFC 3490 needs to be updated. In >> fact, I know the Apps ADs will place a DISCUSS on this particular >> point based on some exchanges about a DKIM draft on a similar topic. >> The change is slightly more complicated than replacing the >> references because ToASCII went bye-bye in RFC 5890. After some >> exchanges with an Apps AD, the following change would "work" (this >> very similar to the changes proposed by DKIM to their draft) - and >> "work" means won't force a recycle at DS: >> >> OLD: >> >> A hostname is always in US-ASCII (as per [RFC1033]); >> internationalized hostnames are encoded in US-ASCII as domain >> names after transformation via the ToASCII operation specified >> in [RFC3490]. The ToASCII operation MUST be performed with the >> UseSTD3ASCIIRules flag set. The hostname is followed by a >> colon ':' (US-ASCII character 0x3A) and a decimal port number >> in US-ASCII. The name SHOULD be fully qualified whenever >> possible. >> >> NEW: >> >> A hostname is always in US-ASCII (as per [RFC1033]); >> internationalized hostnames are encoded as A-labels as specified >> in [RFC5890]. The hostname is followed by a >> colon ':' (US-ASCII character 0x3A) and a decimal port number >> in US-ASCII. The name SHOULD be fully qualified whenever >> possible. > > So you kept [RFC1033] instead of the suggested [RFC1123] by intention > or was this an accident? I was going to take it as two different suggested changes. If we accept replacing 1033 with 1123, then the text above would include 1123. And, I the exact words I sent to the Apps AD was above (but I bet they wouldn't object to the r/1033/1123 change). >> FYI I also asked about setting the UseSTD3ASCIIRules flag and Pete >> said it was completely unnecessary as far as he could tell. That's >> why I just dropped it. >> >> Does anybody object to this change? (It's perfectly okay to object >> to these words. We'll just need to work some other text out with >> Pete/Peter). >> >> What do others feel about the reference change from RFC 1033 to >> 1123. Are there any technical reasons to not make this change? >> >> As a result of the change for the 3490 reference (and maybe 1033 >> references), either a new draft is needed or I need to enter an RFC >> editor note.* I'm willing to enter these changes as RFC editor >> notes. Just let me know which path you'd like to follow. >> >> spt >> >> * The new draft or RFC editor note will need to include the >> editorial errata filed against RFC 5953. > > So you are saying we have to republish RFC 5953 in order to make this > change in order to advance? Hmm what I'm saying is that when this document is published it won't be RFC 5953 it'll be RFC XXXX but it will be at PS. RFC XXXX will include the changes and the errata. There are two ways to tell the RFC editor how to do this: a) via an ID or b) via an RFC editor note. I believe b will be quicker and it's definitely the option I'd prefer. spt From j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de Mon May 2 23:54:27 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: isms@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: isms@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D7B18E073E for ; Mon, 2 May 2011 23:54:27 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -103.16 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.16 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.089, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id p1B0q2X3ximq for ; Mon, 2 May 2011 23:54:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.jacobs-university.de (hermes.jacobs-university.de [212.201.44.23]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2EDADE06E1 for ; Mon, 2 May 2011 23:54:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (demetrius3.jacobs-university.de [212.201.44.48]) by hermes.jacobs-university.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id D55D22095C; Tue, 3 May 2011 08:54:25 +0200 (CEST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at jacobs-university.de Received: from hermes.jacobs-university.de ([212.201.44.23]) by localhost (demetrius3.jacobs-university.de [212.201.44.32]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 6+utS+KLMyza; Tue, 3 May 2011 08:54:22 +0200 (CEST) Received: from elstar.local (elstar.jacobs.jacobs-university.de [10.50.231.133]) by hermes.jacobs-university.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 285E62090B; Tue, 3 May 2011 08:54:22 +0200 (CEST) Received: by elstar.local (Postfix, from userid 501) id 3FC7F1858165; Tue, 3 May 2011 08:54:16 +0200 (CEST) Date: Tue, 3 May 2011 08:54:16 +0200 From: Juergen Schoenwaelder To: Sean Turner Message-ID: <20110503065415.GA3264@elstar.local> Mail-Followup-To: Sean Turner , isms@ietf.org References: <20110419211456.203DAE084A@ietfc.amsl.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20110430150731.029f3fd8@resistor.net> <4DBEC59F.2030902@ieca.com> <20110502150653.GA1312@elstar.local> <4DBFA420.2060901@ieca.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4DBFA420.2060901@ieca.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Cc: isms@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Isms] Last Call: rfc5953 (Transport Layer Security (TLS) Transport Model for the Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP)) to Draft Standard X-BeenThere: isms@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: Juergen Schoenwaelder List-Id: Mailing list for the ISMS working group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 03 May 2011 06:54:27 -0000 On Tue, May 03, 2011 at 08:43:44AM +0200, Sean Turner wrote: > >So you are saying we have to republish RFC 5953 in order to make this > >change in order to advance? > > Hmm what I'm saying is that when this document is published it won't > be RFC 5953 it'll be RFC XXXX but it will be at PS. RFC XXXX will > include the changes and the errata. There are two ways to tell the > RFC editor how to do this: a) via an ID or b) via an RFC editor > note. I believe b will be quicker and it's definitely the option > I'd prefer. So in order to advance RFC XXXX to DS, we then need in N months an interoperability report on internationalized domain name representation?? I am just trying to understand what the perspective of this is. /js -- Juergen Schoenwaelder Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH Phone: +49 421 200 3587 Campus Ring 1, 28759 Bremen, Germany Fax: +49 421 200 3103 From turners@ieca.com Tue May 3 00:11:04 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: isms@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: isms@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 043B6E0780 for ; Tue, 3 May 2011 00:11:04 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.521 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.521 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.077, BAYES_00=-2.599, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id WSGzadhrO3+i for ; Tue, 3 May 2011 00:11:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nm27-vm0.bullet.mail.bf1.yahoo.com (nm27-vm0.bullet.mail.bf1.yahoo.com [98.139.213.139]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 5157EE06D4 for ; Tue, 3 May 2011 00:11:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [98.139.212.153] by nm27.bullet.mail.bf1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 03 May 2011 07:10:58 -0000 Received: from [98.139.212.244] by tm10.bullet.mail.bf1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 03 May 2011 07:10:58 -0000 Received: from [127.0.0.1] by omp1053.mail.bf1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 03 May 2011 07:10:58 -0000 X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: 461361.26989.bm@omp1053.mail.bf1.yahoo.com Received: (qmail 33685 invoked from network); 3 May 2011 07:10:58 -0000 Received: from dhcp-guest-ams5-144-254-113-95.cisco.com (turners@198.180.150.234 with plain) by smtp101.biz.mail.bf1.yahoo.com with SMTP; 03 May 2011 00:10:58 -0700 PDT X-Yahoo-SMTP: ZrP3VLSswBDL75pF8ymZHDSu9B.vcMfDPgLJ X-YMail-OSG: gSRNtQUVM1kpxqwI9.2sNpsBQiuATMUB9QRIFRCOYLKOEs3 jUSoaaPT1IiKr2tajphoQHyRR4T4dF9rij0A.c7qb4e68hZFrjNw3yDb6Ymo 75QGXp9zAiFflIaGqnqaHvc1cTK04P6zKQ5UALV7aC_P2yNtnDDT8gXTbS0S fLpQo0DCBOvOnBzYEwgMhcCllrb88ecQU4G_Le0VYo2mBVnEmE8S5taZd6yj fAxnvIbbFlCqUVBblrFgID5mejC91TWGGbGgssZxvTlrLcdsxJ2u2eUK0V3_ p6pXfNZ59CSM6jwTE8pyqV4Q2Xw0vZAF1MKh2M6BuPVw8sjvAieyBvZuiD1N hMa79232lpplTGPt.CxhdhnGW X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3 Message-ID: <4DBFAA80.7070306@ieca.com> Date: Tue, 03 May 2011 09:10:56 +0200 From: Sean Turner User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; en-US; rv:1.9.2.17) Gecko/20110414 Lightning/1.0b2 Thunderbird/3.1.10 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: isms@ietf.org References: <20110419211456.203DAE084A@ietfc.amsl.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20110430150731.029f3fd8@resistor.net> <4DBEC59F.2030902@ieca.com> <20110502150653.GA1312@elstar.local> <4DBFA420.2060901@ieca.com> <20110503065415.GA3264@elstar.local> In-Reply-To: <20110503065415.GA3264@elstar.local> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Isms] Last Call: rfc5953 (Transport Layer Security (TLS) Transport Model for the Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP)) to Draft Standard X-BeenThere: isms@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Mailing list for the ISMS working group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 03 May 2011 07:11:04 -0000 On 5/3/11 8:54 AM, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote: > On Tue, May 03, 2011 at 08:43:44AM +0200, Sean Turner wrote: > >>> So you are saying we have to republish RFC 5953 in order to make this >>> change in order to advance? >> >> Hmm what I'm saying is that when this document is published it won't >> be RFC 5953 it'll be RFC XXXX but it will be at PS. RFC XXXX will ugh (red faced) .... but it will be DS not PS. Sorry about this confusion. >> include the changes and the errata. There are two ways to tell the >> RFC editor how to do this: a) via an ID or b) via an RFC editor >> note. I believe b will be quicker and it's definitely the option >> I'd prefer. > > So in order to advance RFC XXXX to DS, we then need in N months an > interoperability report on internationalized domain name > representation?? I am just trying to understand what the perspective > of this is. I blew it: RFC XXXX will be DS. spt From j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de Tue May 3 00:16:29 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: isms@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: isms@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 261DDE06E1 for ; Tue, 3 May 2011 00:16:29 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -103.163 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.163 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.086, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id R-M1IPw+gi0R for ; Tue, 3 May 2011 00:16:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.jacobs-university.de (hermes.jacobs-university.de [212.201.44.23]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 078B6E07A2 for ; Tue, 3 May 2011 00:16:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (demetrius2.jacobs-university.de [212.201.44.47]) by hermes.jacobs-university.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id AB9DA20A6D; Tue, 3 May 2011 09:16:25 +0200 (CEST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at jacobs-university.de Received: from hermes.jacobs-university.de ([212.201.44.23]) by localhost (demetrius2.jacobs-university.de [212.201.44.32]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id RlKQwOhwVXOw; Tue, 3 May 2011 09:16:25 +0200 (CEST) Received: from elstar.local (elstar.jacobs.jacobs-university.de [10.50.231.133]) by hermes.jacobs-university.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 03A8520A13; Tue, 3 May 2011 09:16:24 +0200 (CEST) Received: by elstar.local (Postfix, from userid 501) id 9086D1858297; Tue, 3 May 2011 09:16:19 +0200 (CEST) Date: Tue, 3 May 2011 09:16:19 +0200 From: Juergen Schoenwaelder To: Sean Turner Message-ID: <20110503071619.GB3386@elstar.local> Mail-Followup-To: Sean Turner , isms@ietf.org References: <20110419211456.203DAE084A@ietfc.amsl.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20110430150731.029f3fd8@resistor.net> <4DBEC59F.2030902@ieca.com> <20110502150653.GA1312@elstar.local> <4DBFA420.2060901@ieca.com> <20110503065415.GA3264@elstar.local> <4DBFAA80.7070306@ieca.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4DBFAA80.7070306@ieca.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Cc: isms@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Isms] Last Call: rfc5953 (Transport Layer Security (TLS) Transport Model for the Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP)) to Draft Standard X-BeenThere: isms@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: Juergen Schoenwaelder List-Id: Mailing list for the ISMS working group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 03 May 2011 07:16:29 -0000 On Tue, May 03, 2011 at 09:10:56AM +0200, Sean Turner wrote: > > I blew it: RFC XXXX will be DS. > That sounds much better. ;-) /js -- Juergen Schoenwaelder Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH Phone: +49 421 200 3587 Campus Ring 1, 28759 Bremen, Germany Fax: +49 421 200 3103 From wjhns1@hardakers.net Tue May 3 07:17:09 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: isms@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: isms@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 99022E06C9 for ; Tue, 3 May 2011 07:17:09 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id VrO8JVYWjA8T for ; Tue, 3 May 2011 07:17:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.hardakers.net (mail.hardakers.net [168.150.236.43]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0AA99E06A8 for ; Tue, 3 May 2011 07:17:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (wjh.hardakers.net [10.0.0.2]) by mail.hardakers.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 1361D105; Tue, 3 May 2011 07:16:38 -0700 (PDT) From: Wes Hardaker To: Sean Turner References: <20110419211456.203DAE084A@ietfc.amsl.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20110430150731.029f3fd8@resistor.net> <4DBEC59F.2030902@ieca.com> <20110502150653.GA1312@elstar.local> <4DBFA420.2060901@ieca.com> Date: Tue, 03 May 2011 07:16:37 -0700 In-Reply-To: <4DBFA420.2060901@ieca.com> (Sean Turner's message of "Tue, 03 May 2011 08:43:44 +0200") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.110018 (No Gnus v0.18) Emacs/23.2 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Cc: isms@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Isms] Last Call: rfc5953 (Transport Layer Security (TLS) Transport Model for the Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP)) to Draft Standard X-BeenThere: isms@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Mailing list for the ISMS working group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 03 May 2011 14:17:09 -0000 >>>>> On Tue, 03 May 2011 08:43:44 +0200, Sean Turner said: ST> Hmm what I'm saying is that when this document is published it won't ST> be RFC 5953 it'll be RFC XXXX but it will be at [DS]. RFC XXXX will ST> include the changes and the errata. There are two ways to tell the ST> RFC editor how to do this: a) via an ID or b) via an RFC editor note. ST> I believe b will be quicker and it's definitely the option I'd prefer. I'm fine with either; if you want to do it via editor notes that's just fine with me! [and, yes, we definitely need to include the errata] -- Wes Hardaker Cobham Analytic Solutions From wjhns1@hardakers.net Tue May 3 07:18:34 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: isms@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: isms@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 892A6E0826 for ; Tue, 3 May 2011 07:18:34 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id SvkAkJX497+v for ; Tue, 3 May 2011 07:18:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.hardakers.net (mail.hardakers.net [168.150.236.43]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CE17FE0684 for ; Tue, 3 May 2011 07:18:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (wjh.hardakers.net [10.0.0.2]) by mail.hardakers.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 5E84519A; Tue, 3 May 2011 07:18:03 -0700 (PDT) From: Wes Hardaker To: Sean Turner References: <20110419211456.203DAE084A@ietfc.amsl.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20110430150731.029f3fd8@resistor.net> <4DBEC59F.2030902@ieca.com> Date: Tue, 03 May 2011 07:18:03 -0700 In-Reply-To: <4DBEC59F.2030902@ieca.com> (Sean Turner's message of "Mon, 02 May 2011 16:54:23 +0200") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.110018 (No Gnus v0.18) Emacs/23.2 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Cc: isms@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Isms] Last Call: rfc5953 (Transport Layer Security (TLS) Transport Model for the Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP)) to Draft Standard X-BeenThere: isms@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Mailing list for the ISMS working group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 03 May 2011 14:18:34 -0000 >>>>> On Mon, 02 May 2011 16:54:23 +0200, Sean Turner said: ST> FYI I also asked about setting the UseSTD3ASCIIRules flag and Pete ST> said it was completely unnecessary as far as he could tell. That's ST> why I just dropped it. FYI, that was required by something or someone. I'll need to look through history to figure out why I put it in there. It certainly wasn't because "I thought it needed to be". I'm admittedly fairly clueless when it comes to the proper ways to specify internationalization and the text in the document came from multiple discussions. -- Wes Hardaker Cobham Analytic Solutions From wjhns1@hardakers.net Tue May 3 07:22:37 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: isms@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: isms@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 52323E06C9 for ; Tue, 3 May 2011 07:22:37 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id X8NDnDZpkUHQ for ; Tue, 3 May 2011 07:22:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.hardakers.net (mail.hardakers.net [168.150.236.43]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3A5D1E0684 for ; Tue, 3 May 2011 07:22:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (wjh.hardakers.net [10.0.0.2]) by mail.hardakers.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id A61CF19A; Tue, 3 May 2011 07:22:04 -0700 (PDT) From: Wes Hardaker To: Sean Turner References: <20110419211456.203DAE084A@ietfc.amsl.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20110430150731.029f3fd8@resistor.net> <4DBEC59F.2030902@ieca.com> Date: Tue, 03 May 2011 07:22:04 -0700 In-Reply-To: <4DBEC59F.2030902@ieca.com> (Sean Turner's message of "Mon, 02 May 2011 16:54:23 +0200") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.110018 (No Gnus v0.18) Emacs/23.2 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Cc: isms@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Isms] Last Call: rfc5953 (Transport Layer Security (TLS) Transport Model for the Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP)) to Draft Standard X-BeenThere: isms@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Mailing list for the ISMS working group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 03 May 2011 14:22:37 -0000 >>>>> On Mon, 02 May 2011 16:54:23 +0200, Sean Turner said: ST> FYI I also asked about setting the UseSTD3ASCIIRules flag and Pete ST> said it was completely unnecessary as far as he could tell. That's ST> why I just dropped it. I'm glad I took good notes last time. The flag setting came from comments from Peter Saint-Andre: ******* CLOSED The definition of SnmpTLSAddress states that "internationalized hostnames are encoded in US-ASCII as specified in RFC 3490", but I think this could be defined more precisely because (1) RFC 3490 does not talk about "internationalized hostnames", (2) you need to state that you are using the ToASCII operation, and (3) you need to specify whether the UseSTD3ASCIIRules flag is set. This definition also appears to make normative references to RFC 1033 and RFC 3490, but those specifications are not included in the Normative References section. Finally, this definition references RFC 3986 but that specification is never used here. + WH: I've changed the text to the following to address your concerns; please let me know if you believe it needs further changes. A hostname is always in US-ASCII (as per RFC1033); internationalized hostnames are encoded in US-ASCII as domain names after transformation via the ToASCII operation specified in RFC 3490. The ToASCII operation MUST be performed with the UseSTD3ASCIIRules flag set. The hostname is followed by a colon ':' (US-ASCII character 0x3A) and a decimal port number in US-ASCII. The name SHOULD be fully qualified whenever possible. + WH: references for 3490 and 1033 moved to the normative section. + WH: The 3986 reference has been removed (in the process of responding to other similar comments). + Peter: Excellent. -- Wes Hardaker Cobham Analytic Solutions From turners@ieca.com Thu May 5 06:57:12 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: isms@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: isms@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 33402E08A2 for ; Thu, 5 May 2011 06:57:12 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.477 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.477 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.121, BAYES_00=-2.599, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id OiTNhBmgRAFN for ; Thu, 5 May 2011 06:57:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nm26-vm0.bullet.mail.sp2.yahoo.com (nm26-vm0.bullet.mail.sp2.yahoo.com [98.139.91.230]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 527D7E08A1 for ; Thu, 5 May 2011 06:57:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [98.139.91.62] by nm26.bullet.mail.sp2.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 05 May 2011 13:57:08 -0000 Received: from [98.139.91.43] by tm2.bullet.mail.sp2.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 05 May 2011 13:57:08 -0000 Received: from [127.0.0.1] by omp1043.mail.sp2.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 05 May 2011 13:57:08 -0000 X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: 85154.21491.bm@omp1043.mail.sp2.yahoo.com Received: (qmail 87401 invoked from network); 5 May 2011 13:57:07 -0000 Received: from thunderfish.local (turners@96.231.128.192 with plain) by smtp111.biz.mail.mud.yahoo.com with SMTP; 05 May 2011 06:57:06 -0700 PDT X-Yahoo-SMTP: ZrP3VLSswBDL75pF8ymZHDSu9B.vcMfDPgLJ X-YMail-OSG: m91pS7UVM1lYKWhamgRXHTw0kYueRlHH6Z3g5dckAvH3ddu BUnvYbgAmGuWXwJQbKDCjUSeRIL.f0R8WZj0dJsAafYzD1ALpBI7Oomyelm1 64dcBG07oIyppmDjfa18Aela3nTBHfyV.NEax9wu65gMtHq_Z4sSTD8sOq7q 3qZ3pIm9aHBDz5zB_M.03IWY6fAae89fQaNL0mKGnpMZyGIDddD8lt3Sl.Od 2fhwgZjmROYe9kTR3P44upoRdd8dUH38pIwRLuSRz3PjXxD4vaak1dOyYDt6 oU9i451HYXS6c_1E8tX3sYbfAnSVFn9Lbq5yV8YRj33YuWigLqvHSJucd8JC BRJ7afxjGGjXZupuOn02kcyUqYvgBU9.Iu.ttrx146uc- X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3 Message-ID: <4DC2ACB1.2080501@ieca.com> Date: Thu, 05 May 2011 09:57:05 -0400 From: Sean Turner User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; en-US; rv:1.9.2.17) Gecko/20110414 Lightning/1.0b2 Thunderbird/3.1.10 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Wes Hardaker References: <20110419211456.203DAE084A@ietfc.amsl.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20110430150731.029f3fd8@resistor.net> <4DBEC59F.2030902@ieca.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: isms@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Isms] Last Call: rfc5953 (Transport Layer Security (TLS) Transport Model for the Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP)) to Draft Standard X-BeenThere: isms@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Mailing list for the ISMS working group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 05 May 2011 13:57:12 -0000 Wes, I asked Peter Tuesday about this and he confirmed that we don't need to say anything about setting the flag in the new text but you did need to say something about it with the old text. spt On 5/3/11 10:22 AM, Wes Hardaker wrote: >>>>>> On Mon, 02 May 2011 16:54:23 +0200, Sean Turner said: > > ST> FYI I also asked about setting the UseSTD3ASCIIRules flag and Pete > ST> said it was completely unnecessary as far as he could tell. That's > ST> why I just dropped it. > > I'm glad I took good notes last time. The flag setting came from > comments from Peter Saint-Andre: > > ******* CLOSED The definition of SnmpTLSAddress states that > "internationalized hostnames are encoded in US-ASCII as > specified in RFC 3490", but I think this could be defined more > precisely because (1) RFC 3490 does not talk about > "internationalized hostnames", (2) you need to state that you > are using the ToASCII operation, and (3) you need to specify > whether the UseSTD3ASCIIRules flag is set. This definition > also appears to make normative references to RFC 1033 and RFC > 3490, but those specifications are not included in the > Normative References section. Finally, this definition > references RFC 3986 but that specification is never used here. > > + WH: I've changed the text to the following to address your > concerns; please let me know if you believe it needs further > changes. > > A hostname is always in US-ASCII (as per RFC1033); > internationalized hostnames are encoded in US-ASCII as > domain names after transformation via the ToASCII > operation specified in RFC 3490. The ToASCII operation > MUST be performed with the UseSTD3ASCIIRules flag set. > The hostname is followed by a colon ':' (US-ASCII > character 0x3A) and a decimal port number in US-ASCII. > The name SHOULD be fully qualified whenever possible. > > > + WH: references for 3490 and 1033 moved to the normative section. > > + WH: The 3986 reference has been removed (in the process of > responding to other similar comments). > > + Peter: Excellent. > From wjhns1@hardakers.net Thu May 5 07:26:00 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: isms@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: isms@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2725AE08B7 for ; Thu, 5 May 2011 07:26:00 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Vcut5Plg3Fi3 for ; Thu, 5 May 2011 07:25:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.hardakers.net (mail.hardakers.net [168.150.236.43]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 260EBE06A6 for ; Thu, 5 May 2011 07:25:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (wjh.hardakers.net [10.0.0.2]) by mail.hardakers.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 6EEA7131; Thu, 5 May 2011 07:25:26 -0700 (PDT) From: Wes Hardaker To: Sean Turner References: <20110419211456.203DAE084A@ietfc.amsl.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20110430150731.029f3fd8@resistor.net> <4DBEC59F.2030902@ieca.com> <4DC2ACB1.2080501@ieca.com> Date: Thu, 05 May 2011 07:25:26 -0700 In-Reply-To: <4DC2ACB1.2080501@ieca.com> (Sean Turner's message of "Thu, 05 May 2011 09:57:05 -0400") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.110018 (No Gnus v0.18) Emacs/23.2 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Cc: isms@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Isms] Last Call: rfc5953 (Transport Layer Security (TLS) Transport Model for the Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP)) to Draft Standard X-BeenThere: isms@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Mailing list for the ISMS working group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 05 May 2011 14:26:00 -0000 >>>>> On Thu, 05 May 2011 09:57:05 -0400, Sean Turner said: ST> I asked Peter Tuesday about this and he confirmed that we don't need ST> to say anything about setting the flag in the new text but you did ST> need to say something about it with the old text. Ok, thanks for checking on it and good to know! -- Wes Hardaker Cobham Analytic Solutions From turners@ieca.com Sun May 8 08:21:25 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: isms@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: isms@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5FC60E0703 for ; Sun, 8 May 2011 08:21:25 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.499 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.499 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.099, BAYES_00=-2.599, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id rs8nLMeR7qhm for ; Sun, 8 May 2011 08:21:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nm14.bullet.mail.sp2.yahoo.com (nm14.bullet.mail.sp2.yahoo.com [98.139.91.84]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id D57B3E068C for ; Sun, 8 May 2011 08:21:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [98.139.91.70] by nm14.bullet.mail.sp2.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 08 May 2011 15:21:24 -0000 Received: from [98.139.91.7] by tm10.bullet.mail.sp2.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 08 May 2011 15:21:24 -0000 Received: from [127.0.0.1] by omp1007.mail.sp2.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 08 May 2011 15:21:24 -0000 X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: 828282.33852.bm@omp1007.mail.sp2.yahoo.com Received: (qmail 17665 invoked from network); 8 May 2011 15:21:24 -0000 Received: from thunderfish.local (turners@96.231.117.210 with plain) by smtp112.biz.mail.sp1.yahoo.com with SMTP; 08 May 2011 08:21:23 -0700 PDT X-Yahoo-SMTP: ZrP3VLSswBDL75pF8ymZHDSu9B.vcMfDPgLJ X-YMail-OSG: M2N.ocAVM1nD0BiutreE1MFzRMgYWRDoMBIJEeY.0Fi0u.Y HbL_hSJD0Nw7qhp9zhijXxN1VZsRIwUbrFgEz9H1mcGKgnzKuv49PZlRcz2O mGc2HJrKKEuceX6ykLDEtrLEE425_jVWYscXRNrZcSKpUYIXQ9QRzhd9TKrA iL.pgx0p95yCdyepAnu6O.B0TMB.ALHkmwFfAhnjONARocrMs8dqm66TdSrR D0vn9350WXKYYPEiGz2LHkN4L2DMrktrLnsm779.7IKKzdmb06HuVco9WZfB lL0XvCv3MyAdLaWkBS2N_EfLGb3owuyfgFAS1sKPNzIJAVP_z.qTS8SmWk8C lQ6ZrnHICYr.hvbuGPuCyHd7tNkZjUMfPXj4ou87p_ME- X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3 Message-ID: <4DC6B4F1.7000405@ieca.com> Date: Sun, 08 May 2011 11:21:21 -0400 From: Sean Turner User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; en-US; rv:1.9.2.17) Gecko/20110414 Lightning/1.0b2 Thunderbird/3.1.10 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: isms@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Isms] RFC editor note for RFC 5953 X-BeenThere: isms@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Mailing list for the ISMS working group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 08 May 2011 15:21:25 -0000 As a result of the changes to 5953, I've whipped up an RFC editor note. Please review the following and let me know if this is all right: RFC Editor Note Please note the original "plan" was to progress RFC 5953 from PS to DS as. During IETF LC there were two changes that were identified, so that plan is out the window. Please incorporate the following in to the published version: 1) Add the following in the boilerplate header: Obsoletes: 5953 (once approved) 2) Section 7 OLD: A hostname is always in US-ASCII (as per [RFC1033]); internationalized hostnames are encoded in US-ASCII as domain names after transformation via the ToASCII operation specified in [RFC3490]. The ToASCII operation MUST be performed with the UseSTD3ASCIIRules flag set. The hostname is followed by a colon ':' (US-ASCII character 0x3A) and a decimal port number in US-ASCII. The name SHOULD be fully qualified whenever possible. NEW: A hostname is always in US-ASCII (as per [RFC1123]); internationalized hostnames are encoded as A-labels as specified in [RFC5890]. The hostname is followed by a colon ':' (US-ASCII character 0x3A) and a decimal port number in US-ASCII. The name SHOULD be fully qualified whenever possible. 3) Section 12 Replace references to RFC 1033 and RFC 3490 with references to RFC 1123 and RFC 5890, respectively. 4) Incorporate the following errata: 4a) Section A.1 OLD snmpTargetParamsRowStatus = 4 (createAndGo0 NEW: snmpTargetParamsRowStatus = 4 (createAndGo) 4b) Section A.1 OLD: snmpTargetAddrColumnStatus = 4 (createAndGo) NEW: snmpTargetAddrRowStatus = 4 (createAndGo) 5) Add the following new section to highlight these changes: 1.2 Changes Since RFC 5953 This document obsoletes [RFC5953]. Since the publication of RFC 5953, a few editorial errata have been noted. These errata are posted on the RFC Editor web site. These errors have been corrected in this document. This document updates the references to RFC 3490 (IDNA 2003) to to RFC 5890 (IDNA 2008), because RFC 3490 was obsoleted by RFC 5890. References to RFC 1033 were replaced with references to RFC 1123. 6) Section 12 Add RFC 5953 as an informative reference. spt From j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de Mon May 9 03:09:51 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: isms@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: isms@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4C6CCE071F for ; Mon, 9 May 2011 03:09:51 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -103.184 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.184 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.065, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 7z6Wx9SCy2na for ; Mon, 9 May 2011 03:09:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.jacobs-university.de (hermes.jacobs-university.de [212.201.44.23]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F0E74E06E0 for ; Mon, 9 May 2011 03:09:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (demetrius1.jacobs-university.de [212.201.44.46]) by hermes.jacobs-university.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id F077220BDE; Mon, 9 May 2011 12:09:41 +0200 (CEST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at jacobs-university.de Received: from hermes.jacobs-university.de ([212.201.44.23]) by localhost (demetrius1.jacobs-university.de [212.201.44.32]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 8yk7Ok2zGT1n; Mon, 9 May 2011 12:09:42 +0200 (CEST) Received: from elstar.local (elstar.jacobs.jacobs-university.de [10.50.231.133]) by hermes.jacobs-university.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6FD5F20B6C; Mon, 9 May 2011 12:09:41 +0200 (CEST) Received: by elstar.local (Postfix, from userid 501) id E5888187066C; Mon, 9 May 2011 12:09:36 +0200 (CEST) Date: Mon, 9 May 2011 12:09:36 +0200 From: Juergen Schoenwaelder To: Sean Turner Message-ID: <20110509100936.GA32735@elstar.local> Mail-Followup-To: Sean Turner , isms@ietf.org References: <4DC6B4F1.7000405@ieca.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4DC6B4F1.7000405@ieca.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Cc: isms@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Isms] RFC editor note for RFC 5953 X-BeenThere: isms@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: Juergen Schoenwaelder List-Id: Mailing list for the ISMS working group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 09 May 2011 10:09:51 -0000 On Sun, May 08, 2011 at 11:21:21AM -0400, Sean Turner wrote: > As a result of the changes to 5953, I've whipped up an RFC editor > note. Please review the following and let me know if this is all > right: [...] Looks good to me. /js -- Juergen Schoenwaelder Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH Phone: +49 421 200 3587 Campus Ring 1, 28759 Bremen, Germany Fax: +49 421 200 3103 From wjhns1@hardakers.net Mon May 9 09:33:00 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: isms@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: isms@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 20F98E0862 for ; Mon, 9 May 2011 09:33:00 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id CXkUtQ9fYMvi for ; Mon, 9 May 2011 09:32:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.hardakers.net (mail.hardakers.net [168.150.236.43]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9E79FE0854 for ; Mon, 9 May 2011 09:32:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (wjh.hardakers.net [10.0.0.2]) by mail.hardakers.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 324A12D; Mon, 9 May 2011 09:23:23 -0700 (PDT) From: Wes Hardaker To: Sean Turner References: <4DC6B4F1.7000405@ieca.com> Date: Mon, 09 May 2011 09:23:22 -0700 In-Reply-To: <4DC6B4F1.7000405@ieca.com> (Sean Turner's message of "Sun, 08 May 2011 11:21:21 -0400") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.110018 (No Gnus v0.18) Emacs/23.2 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Cc: isms@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Isms] IsmsRFC editor note for RFC 5953 X-BeenThere: isms@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Mailing list for the ISMS working group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 09 May 2011 16:33:00 -0000 >>>>> On Sun, 08 May 2011 11:21:21 -0400, Sean Turner said: ST> As a result of the changes to 5953, I've whipped up an RFC editor ST> note. Please review the following and let me know if this is all ST> right: Looks great to me, thanks for writing it up! -- Wes Hardaker Cobham Analytic Solutions From wwwrun@ietfa.amsl.com Mon May 9 13:43:31 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: isms@ietf.org Delivered-To: isms@ietfa.amsl.com Received: by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix, from userid 30) id 885F6E0947; Mon, 9 May 2011 13:43:31 -0700 (PDT) X-idtracker: yes To: IETF-Announce From: The IESG Message-Id: <20110509204331.885F6E0947@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Mon, 9 May 2011 13:43:31 -0700 (PDT) Cc: isms@ietf.org Subject: [Isms] Second Last Call: rfc5953 (Transport Layer Security (TLS) Transport Model for the Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP)) to Draft Standard X-BeenThere: isms@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org List-Id: Mailing list for the ISMS working group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 09 May 2011 20:43:31 -0000 The IESG has received a request from the isms WG (isms) to consider the following document: - 'Transport Layer Security (TLS) Transport Model for the Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP) ' RFC 5953 as a Draft Standard Two issues were raised during the first Last Call: 1) references to IDNA 2003 (RFC 3490) need to be replaced by references to IDNA 2008 (RFC 5890), and 2) references to RFC 1033 need to be replaced by references to 1123. This Last Call is focused on these two issues. To address these points the following changes were made: OLD: A hostname is always in US-ASCII (as per [RFC1033]); internationalized hostnames are encoded in US-ASCII as domain names after transformation via the ToASCII operation specified in [RFC3490]. The ToASCII operation MUST be performed with the UseSTD3ASCIIRules flag set. The hostname is followed by a colon ':' (US-ASCII character 0x3A) and a decimal port number in US-ASCII. The name SHOULD be fully qualified whenever possible. NEW: A hostname is always in US-ASCII (as per [RFC1123]); internationalized hostnames are encoded as A-labels as specified in [RFC5890]. The hostname is followed by a colon ':' (US-ASCII character 0x3A) and a decimal port number in US-ASCII. The name SHOULD be fully qualified whenever possible. Changing the references also means the downref call needs to be updated, as follows: This specification contains eight normative references to standards track documents of lower maturity: RFCs 1123, 3584, 4347, 4366, 5246, 5280, 5890, and 5952. The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2011-05-23. Exceptionally, comments may be sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting. The file can be obtained via http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc5953/ Implementation Report can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/iesg/implementation.html IESG discussion can be tracked via http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc5953/ From turners@ieca.com Tue May 10 04:55:35 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: isms@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: isms@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C0B7FE0789 for ; Tue, 10 May 2011 04:55:35 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -101.948 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.948 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.650, BAYES_00=-2.599, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 1ya7yHaXX04N for ; Tue, 10 May 2011 04:55:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nm17-vm4.bullet.mail.ne1.yahoo.com (nm17-vm4.bullet.mail.ne1.yahoo.com [98.138.91.177]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 14805E06B0 for ; Tue, 10 May 2011 04:55:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [98.138.90.57] by nm17.bullet.mail.ne1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 10 May 2011 11:55:31 -0000 Received: from [98.138.86.157] by tm10.bullet.mail.ne1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 10 May 2011 11:55:31 -0000 Received: from [127.0.0.1] by omp1015.mail.ne1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 10 May 2011 11:55:31 -0000 X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: 259111.6472.bm@omp1015.mail.ne1.yahoo.com Received: (qmail 49019 invoked from network); 10 May 2011 11:55:30 -0000 Received: from thunderfish.local (turners@71.191.10.111 with plain) by smtp113.biz.mail.mud.yahoo.com with SMTP; 10 May 2011 04:55:30 -0700 PDT X-Yahoo-SMTP: ZrP3VLSswBDL75pF8ymZHDSu9B.vcMfDPgLJ X-YMail-OSG: EUIK0V8VM1ng3lsIwkKeOxyLsMFoqrtNcrty6Hn9JumE2AC F.AK_8lWCWk1RufeLPX2jk0hGUIULKMB1SBqroxui1ZBXGYjwIwxKkZ4H7V. bd8XVOmsgdGX4xLROIw7G1AD0MoC5VjCweEC2jCpItHP_TKMpk2dDcxfH1tN 4wGfz.lssg6YiEA3U.9wzilesC6En97ZrMYZl4nJ62F2A0v9wkmQdNfO3X.X UkjzhKw._5KSUQMOUn1cLz_EZplwOzj9q9rT7CkEcANKx1il6kf8hU.0jHTU zziTPm0MLzZP2KBrap1wZBQRzkaD0vUiG8yc8PVfNtvL7utRFAk8hXax9nzR Gd9fFOOs2r.lHHarEAvX5Sp3AIXCrHuO1uVYDi6KD828- X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3 Message-ID: <4DC927B1.4060207@ieca.com> Date: Tue, 10 May 2011 07:55:29 -0400 From: Sean Turner User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; en-US; rv:1.9.2.17) Gecko/20110414 Lightning/1.0b2 Thunderbird/3.1.10 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: isms@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Isms] fyi: important telechat dates X-BeenThere: isms@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Mailing list for the ISMS working group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 10 May 2011 11:55:35 -0000 I've placed RFC 5590, 5591, and 5953 (+RFC editor note) on the 5/26 telechat agenda. I've also coordinated with Dan and he's going to place RFC 5343 on the same call. spt From j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de Tue May 10 05:04:49 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: isms@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: isms@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B2084E07B1 for ; Tue, 10 May 2011 05:04:49 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -103.187 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.187 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.062, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 7+T3aaKW08JY for ; Tue, 10 May 2011 05:04:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.jacobs-university.de (hermes.jacobs-university.de [212.201.44.23]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8C68FE0708 for ; Tue, 10 May 2011 05:04:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (demetrius2.jacobs-university.de [212.201.44.47]) by hermes.jacobs-university.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1C63120BEE; Tue, 10 May 2011 14:04:45 +0200 (CEST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at jacobs-university.de Received: from hermes.jacobs-university.de ([212.201.44.23]) by localhost (demetrius2.jacobs-university.de [212.201.44.32]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id fRjgZDW5HaSF; Tue, 10 May 2011 14:04:44 +0200 (CEST) Received: from elstar.local (elstar.jacobs.jacobs-university.de [10.50.231.133]) by hermes.jacobs-university.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 737B620BD5; Tue, 10 May 2011 14:04:44 +0200 (CEST) Received: by elstar.local (Postfix, from userid 501) id 8BF94187300B; Tue, 10 May 2011 14:04:38 +0200 (CEST) Date: Tue, 10 May 2011 14:04:38 +0200 From: Juergen Schoenwaelder To: Sean Turner Message-ID: <20110510120438.GA41877@elstar.local> Mail-Followup-To: Sean Turner , isms@ietf.org References: <4DC927B1.4060207@ieca.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4DC927B1.4060207@ieca.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Cc: isms@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Isms] fyi: important telechat dates X-BeenThere: isms@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: Juergen Schoenwaelder List-Id: Mailing list for the ISMS working group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 10 May 2011 12:04:49 -0000 On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 07:55:29AM -0400, Sean Turner wrote: > I've placed RFC 5590, 5591, and 5953 (+RFC editor note) on the 5/26 > telechat agenda. I've also coordinated with Dan and he's going to > place RFC 5343 on the same call. Thanks for keeping us updated. I hope things go through. ;-) /js -- Juergen Schoenwaelder Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH Phone: +49 421 200 3587 Campus Ring 1, 28759 Bremen, Germany Fax: +49 421 200 3103 From wjhns1@hardakers.net Wed May 11 07:04:38 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: isms@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: isms@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F2E84E0746; Wed, 11 May 2011 07:04:37 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id zRxggFdZKs2N; Wed, 11 May 2011 07:04:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.hardakers.net (mail.hardakers.net [168.150.236.43]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6B034E072A; Wed, 11 May 2011 07:04:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (wjh.hardakers.net [10.0.0.2]) by mail.hardakers.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B347B21E; Wed, 11 May 2011 07:04:06 -0700 (PDT) From: Wes Hardaker To: SM References: <20110509204331.885F6E0947@ietfa.amsl.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20110510231928.02c3d078@resistor.net> Date: Wed, 11 May 2011 07:04:06 -0700 In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.2.20110510231928.02c3d078@resistor.net> (sm@resistor.net's message of "Tue, 10 May 2011 23:28:59 -0700") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.110018 (No Gnus v0.18) Emacs/23.2 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Cc: ietf@ietf.org, isms@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Isms] Second Last Call: rfc5953 (Transport Layer Security (TLS) Transport Model for the Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP)) to Draft Standard X-BeenThere: isms@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Mailing list for the ISMS working group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 11 May 2011 14:04:38 -0000 >>>>> On Tue, 10 May 2011 23:28:59 -0700, SM said: >> Changing the references also means the downref call needs to be >> updated, as follows: >> >> This specification contains eight normative references to standards >> track documents of lower maturity: RFCs 1123, 3584, 4347, 4366, >> 5246, 5280, 5890, and 5952. S> RFC 1123 is an Internet Standard (STD 3). The normative reference is S> not a downref. Good point; When the reference changed from the previous RFC to this one, it should have been removed (not changed) in the downref list. S> P.S. I am not asking for a third Last Call. Heh. Yeah, I don't think that's required for an upref. -- Wes Hardaker Cobham Analytic Solutions From turners@ieca.com Wed May 11 07:16:15 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: isms@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: isms@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 34C1EE0773 for ; Wed, 11 May 2011 07:16:15 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -101.299 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.299 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.299, BAYES_00=-2.599, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ENgGY7dtQ-Jh for ; Wed, 11 May 2011 07:16:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nm11.bullet.mail.sp2.yahoo.com (nm11.bullet.mail.sp2.yahoo.com [98.139.91.81]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id B99E0E076F for ; Wed, 11 May 2011 07:16:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [98.139.91.63] by nm11.bullet.mail.sp2.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 11 May 2011 14:16:14 -0000 Received: from [98.139.91.5] by tm3.bullet.mail.sp2.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 11 May 2011 14:16:14 -0000 Received: from [127.0.0.1] by omp1005.mail.sp2.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 11 May 2011 14:16:14 -0000 X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: 695860.64701.bm@omp1005.mail.sp2.yahoo.com Received: (qmail 4389 invoked from network); 11 May 2011 14:16:14 -0000 Received: from thunderfish.local (turners@96.231.116.78 with plain) by smtp111.biz.mail.sp1.yahoo.com with SMTP; 11 May 2011 07:16:14 -0700 PDT X-Yahoo-SMTP: ZrP3VLSswBDL75pF8ymZHDSu9B.vcMfDPgLJ X-YMail-OSG: 5sMRcBIVM1m4Vs6tvK2Rf7j3BZhXzozE_QLLLqMI.PWffvs IyKdFCUKnOZ0r5BYEqh0nvv1Gc8EA6ngiygKJ25D8ANp9sGxAPmCoMF4OjS0 6aDV5xCIpEEmnDjSqDhaBeG9toEu89s8VwSDmqL5fQBMFZFCRezMRrgu.daj 5E0A52ONZHdb6crKvSRiDyidsBknroX2rCL2XnH4ikaMBC3tYwuP5NDyT7t6 VzeSGOpdA.Bm67sYbrNicjB3nyRNTyVJ30aNCxKhiU4P3ezijDkWYmPLMEcj 0G9LKGTQpS2dTSskHQJXCt5UiRFx5fBJ6GU9nzQtSOjGnDlWZS.8z2Gl8KfA .5.DkhvpnV_85C2jfxIS_6Kh78hRvR3ftdB3PXbcFCY8- X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3 Message-ID: <4DCA9A2C.5080900@ieca.com> Date: Wed, 11 May 2011 10:16:12 -0400 From: Sean Turner User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; en-US; rv:1.9.2.17) Gecko/20110414 Lightning/1.0b2 Thunderbird/3.1.10 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: SM References: <20110509204331.885F6E0947@ietfa.amsl.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20110510231928.02c3d078@resistor.net> In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.2.20110510231928.02c3d078@resistor.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: ietf@ietf.org, isms@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Isms] Second Last Call: rfc5953 (Transport Layer Security (TLS) Transport Model for the Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP)) to Draft Standard X-BeenThere: isms@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Mailing list for the ISMS working group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 11 May 2011 14:16:15 -0000 On 5/11/11 2:28 AM, SM wrote: > At 13:43 09-05-2011, The IESG wrote: >> The IESG has received a request from the isms WG (isms) to consider the >> following document: >> >> - 'Transport Layer Security (TLS) Transport Model for the Simple Network >> Management Protocol (SNMP) ' >> RFC 5953 as a Draft Standard >> >> Two issues were raised during the first Last Call: 1) references to >> IDNA 2003 (RFC 3490) need to be replaced by references to IDNA 2008 >> (RFC 5890), and 2) references to RFC 1033 need to be replaced by >> references to 1123. This Last Call is focused on these two issues. > > [snip] > >> Changing the references also means the downref call needs to be >> updated, as follows: >> >> This specification contains eight normative references to standards >> track documents of lower maturity: RFCs 1123, 3584, 4347, 4366, >> 5246, 5280, 5890, and 5952. > > RFC 1123 is an Internet Standard (STD 3). The normative reference is not > a downref. > > Regards, > -sm > > P.S. I am not asking for a third Last Call. Well at least now I don't have to add it to the downref registry. spt From sm@resistor.net Tue May 10 23:32:24 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: isms@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: isms@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AB42FE0665; Tue, 10 May 2011 23:32:24 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Lpvu5Ph71U7d; Tue, 10 May 2011 23:32:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2EEA3E068B; Tue, 10 May 2011 23:32:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from subman.resistor.net (IDENT:sm@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.4/8.14.5.Beta0) with ESMTP id p4B6W7G8025832; Tue, 10 May 2011 23:32:10 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=opendkim.org; s=mail2010; t=1305095532; bh=/e9Z2uGvl+Q9QtVZyn9mEyilE26k0/X9S63Pp/MTtXI=; h=Message-Id:X-Mailer:Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To: References:Mime-Version:Content-Type; b=Go07+0vnRiIcK31pbEuZOL7EhllLItmvwKYK77/kaZQuScaR6/BEc9IraRnHt5pN1 NKXJ/2p15/OGtrwAPx5kGeaugp1hN49sJtvkv8xzXFjYHPGDe0P3reUKpE+uoQp7Bn 0RW8eaIlJzpjzKyOswSv91tj+8yG81UblcFMoBVA= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=resistor.net; s=mail; t=1305095532; bh=/e9Z2uGvl+Q9QtVZyn9mEyilE26k0/X9S63Pp/MTtXI=; h=Message-Id:X-Mailer:Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To: References:Mime-Version:Content-Type; b=uymHkh+V6Pp7OQrV56RMBT/iKD1tsGIjPzqgxTGyveu8tASRbq2EVuuXEp9q9IKyA osIZvxUlpyM1GeHihaUpalxfV84PXOlAoSQsthRTzX7G7pzsFiBkixHSNrf4fmFADg 7xHfKr2QWNtXLHtkwUJYXlMfMZTgiJ1SIrMq8BYk= Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20110510231928.02c3d078@resistor.net> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6 Date: Tue, 10 May 2011 23:28:59 -0700 To: ietf@ietf.org From: SM In-Reply-To: <20110509204331.885F6E0947@ietfa.amsl.com> References: <20110509204331.885F6E0947@ietfa.amsl.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 12 May 2011 09:37:20 -0700 Cc: isms@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Isms] Second Last Call: rfc5953 (Transport Layer Security (TLS) Transport Model for the Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP)) to Draft Standard X-BeenThere: isms@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Mailing list for the ISMS working group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 11 May 2011 06:32:24 -0000 At 13:43 09-05-2011, The IESG wrote: >The IESG has received a request from the isms WG (isms) to consider the >following document: > >- 'Transport Layer Security (TLS) Transport Model for the Simple Network > Management Protocol (SNMP) ' > RFC 5953 as a Draft Standard > >Two issues were raised during the first Last Call: 1) references to >IDNA 2003 (RFC 3490) need to be replaced by references to IDNA 2008 >(RFC 5890), and 2) references to RFC 1033 need to be replaced by >references to 1123. This Last Call is focused on these two issues. [snip] >Changing the references also means the downref call needs to be >updated, as follows: > > This specification contains eight normative references to standards > track documents of lower maturity: RFCs 1123, 3584, 4347, 4366, > 5246, 5280, 5890, and 5952. RFC 1123 is an Internet Standard (STD 3). The normative reference is not a downref. Regards, -sm P.S. I am not asking for a third Last Call. From wwwrun@ietfa.amsl.com Tue May 31 13:52:41 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: isms@ietf.org Delivered-To: isms@ietfa.amsl.com Received: by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix, from userid 30) id B4BB0E08C0; Tue, 31 May 2011 13:52:41 -0700 (PDT) From: IESG Secretary To: IETF Announcement list Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <20110531205241.B4BB0E08C0@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Tue, 31 May 2011 13:52:41 -0700 (PDT) Cc: isms@ietf.org, isms-chairs@tools.ietf.org, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org Subject: [Isms] Protocol Action: 'Transport Subsystem for the Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP)' to Draft Standard X-BeenThere: isms@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Mailing list for the ISMS working group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 31 May 2011 20:52:41 -0000 The IESG has approved the following document: - 'Transport Subsystem for the Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP) ' RFC 5590 as a Draft Standard This document is the product of the Integrated Security Model for SNMP Working Group. The IESG contact persons are Sean Turner and Stephen Farrell. A URL of this RFC is: http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc5590.txt Technical Summary This document defines a Transport Subsystem, extending the Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP) architecture defined in RFC 3411. This document defines a subsystem to contain Transport Models that is comparable to other subsystems in the RFC 3411 architecture. As work is being done to expand the transports to include secure transports, such as the Secure Shell (SSH) Protocol and Transport Layer Security (TLS), using a subsystem will enable consistent design and modularity of such Transport Models. This document identifies and describes some key aspects that need to be considered for any Transport Model for SNMP. Working Group Summary There was nothing worth noting during the WG or IETF LCs. Document Quality An implementations report can be found at: http://www.ietf.org/iesg/implementation/report-rfc5343-5590-5591-5953.txt Personnel Russ Mundy is the Document Shepherd. Sean Turner is the Responsible Area Director. From wwwrun@ietfa.amsl.com Tue May 31 14:09:39 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: isms@ietf.org Delivered-To: isms@ietfa.amsl.com Received: by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix, from userid 30) id BEE27E0903; Tue, 31 May 2011 14:09:39 -0700 (PDT) From: IESG Secretary To: IETF Announcement list Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <20110531210939.BEE27E0903@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Tue, 31 May 2011 14:09:39 -0700 (PDT) Cc: isms@ietf.org, isms-chairs@tools.ietf.org, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org Subject: [Isms] Protocol Action: 'Transport Security Model for the Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP)' to Draft Standard X-BeenThere: isms@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Mailing list for the ISMS working group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 31 May 2011 21:09:39 -0000 The IESG has approved the following document: - 'Transport Security Model for the Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP) ' RFC 5591 as a Draft Standard This document is the product of the Integrated Security Model for SNMP Working Group. The IESG contact persons are Sean Turner and Tim Polk. A URL of this RFC is: http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc5591.txt Technical Summary This memo describes a Transport Security Model for the Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP). This memo also defines a portion of the Management Information Base (MIB) for monitoring and managing the Transport Security Model for SNMP. Working Group Summary There was nothing to note during WGLC or IETF LC. Document Quality An implementations report can be found at: http://www.ietf.org/iesg/implementation/report-rfc5343-5590-5591-5953.txt Personnel Russ Mundy is the Document Shepherd. Sean Turner is the Responsible Area Director. From randy_presuhn@mindspring.com Tue May 31 16:16:31 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: isms@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: isms@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A589B130014 for ; Tue, 31 May 2011 16:16:31 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -99.999 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-99.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Y1MXyjsXE1sy for ; Tue, 31 May 2011 16:16:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from elasmtp-junco.atl.sa.earthlink.net (elasmtp-junco.atl.sa.earthlink.net [209.86.89.63]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 53A0713000E for ; Tue, 31 May 2011 16:16:28 -0700 (PDT) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=dk20050327; d=mindspring.com; b=UVmCxMfPnygortk2iI36iJjW9QJfyvucdLs+BJbiBrXSZ3ieZV93B+uQWyIZvpz6; h=Received:Message-ID:From:To:References:Subject:Date:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:X-Priority:X-MSMail-Priority:X-Mailer:X-MimeOLE:X-ELNK-Trace:X-Originating-IP; Received: from [76.254.53.66] (helo=oemcomputer) by elasmtp-junco.atl.sa.earthlink.net with esmtpa (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from ) id 1QRYAl-0002qr-TH for isms@ietf.org; Tue, 31 May 2011 19:16:28 -0400 Message-ID: <002501cc1fe9$450fb4c0$6801a8c0@oemcomputer> From: "Randy Presuhn" To: References: <20101210013309.4AB75E0715@rfc-editor.org><4D023028.2070800@ieca.com><5CF1BEAB386540BEBF3026C2FE92FF15@23FX1C1> <000401cb995c$b64afdc0$6801a8c0@oemcomputer> Date: Tue, 31 May 2011 16:20:01 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1478 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1478 X-ELNK-Trace: 4488c18417c9426da92b9037bc8bcf44d4c20f6b8d69d888cc964a8bf633b3823e4e78064800378830a241e3398a6b99350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c X-Originating-IP: 76.254.53.66 Subject: Re: [Isms] RFC 6065 on Using Authentication, Authorization, and Accounting Services to Dynamically Provision View-Based Access Control Model User-to-Group Mappings X-BeenThere: isms@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Mailing list for the ISMS working group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 31 May 2011 23:16:31 -0000 Hi - Does anyone have anything to report regarding RFC 6065 implementation, deployment, or operational experience? Has anyone looked into it and decided that some other approach was needed? Randy