Subject: [lamps] Magnus Westerlund's No Objection on draft-ietf-lamps-hash-of-root-key-cert-extn-05: (with COMMENT)

From: Magnus Westerlund via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 21 May 2019 08:46:12 -0700

Magnus Westerlund has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-lamps-hash-of-root-key-cert-extn-05: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lamps-hash-of-root-key-cert-extn/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I would appreciate if one could explain why this document is being published as
an informational one. I am sure there are reasons, but they are not evident
from the writeup.

---

From: Russ Housley <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 21 May 2019 13:47:38 -0400

Magnus:

This was added to the LAMPS WG charter as an informational document in the middle of 2018, and there was a very long IETF Last Call at the beginning of this year, with the issues raised being sorted by the end of February.  Please do not seek another IETF Last Call in order to produce an standards-track RFC.

This document is useful in some PKI environments, but not all.  The Operational Considerations (Section 5) tries to help a Root CA that is standing up a new trust anchor determine whether it should use this extension or not.

Russ

> On May 21, 2019, at 11:46 AM, Magnus Westerlund via Datatracker <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Spasm mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spasm

---

From: Magnus Westerlund <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 May 2019 07:49:02 +0000

Hi,

Don't worry, I was just asking for the reasoning. It reads very much as
a standards track document, and I found nothing in the IESG writeup that
explained it, that is why I asked. Also, I am lacking the area
understanding to determine if there are any formality issues with
publishing this extension as an informational RFC.

I think this is more a note to the sponsoring ADs that they may have to
consider if there will be questions about intended status and needs to
motivate that in the writeup. I will take this up with the IESG.

Cheers

Magnus

-- 

Magnus Westerlund 

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Network Architecture & Protocols, Ericsson Research
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ericsson AB                 | Phone  +46 10 7148287
Torshamnsgatan 23           | Mobile +46 73 0949079
SE-164 80 Stockholm, Sweden | mailto: [email-masked]
----------------------------------------------------------------------