Subject: [Curdle] Alissa Cooper's No Objection on charter-ietf-curdle-00-04: (with COMMENT)

From: "Alissa Cooper" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2015 12:59:06 -0800

Alissa Cooper has entered the following ballot position for
charter-ietf-curdle-00-04: 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.)

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-curdle/

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

The change I had discussed with Stephen when we reviewed this last time
doesn't seem to have been made.
https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url1=https%3A%2F%2Fdatatracker.ietf.org%2Fdoc%2Fcharter-ietf-curdle%2Fwithmilestones-00-02.txt&url2=https%3A%2F%2Fdatatracker.ietf.org%2Fdoc%2Fcharter-ietf-curdle%2Fwithmilestones-00-03.txt

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2015 21:14:55 +0000

> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-curdle/

Sorry thought I had. Will check later.
S.

---

From: Stephen Farrell <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2015 21:51:17 +0000

> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-curdle/

Hmm - the diff below is 02 vs 03 which is the one you thought was ok on
Dec 2nd. [2] Can you check 02 v. 04 [1] 'cause I think that does have
the change. But still happy to do more improve if that's needed.

Cheers,
S.

[1]
https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url1=https%3A%2F%2Fdatatracker.ietf.org%2Fdoc%2Fcharter-ietf-curdle%2Fwithmilestones-00-02.txt&url2=https%3A%2F%2Fdatatracker.ietf.org%2Fdoc%2Fcharter-ietf-curdle%2Fwithmilestones-00-04.txt
[2] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/curdle/UsDZaLVUYoEu9mTOr4KLqpYpj1c

> _______________________________________________
> Curdle mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/curdle
>

---

From: Alissa Cooper <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2015 17:06:44 -0500

> On Dec 16, 2015, at 4:51 PM, Stephen Farrell <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> 
> 

The -04 says

The protocols in scope are Secure Shell (SSH), DNSSEC, PKIX, CMS, XML Digital
Signatures and potentially Kerberos and JSON.
which is almost the same text that I found problematic in the -02.

---

From: Phillip Hallam-Baker <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2015 17:27:51 -0500

> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-curdle/

I agree.

Stating the scope should be separate from stating priorities:

The WG scope is limited to the following protocols: Secure Shell
(SSH), DNSSEC, PKIX, CMS, XML Digital Signatures, Kerberos and JSON.

The WG is not required to address every protocol in scope nor is it
required to address every possible combination of protocol and
algorithm.

---

From: Stephen Farrell <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2015 22:29:54 +0000

Thanks for the text Phil.

> required to address every possible combination of protocol and

I'd be fine with adding the above. Would that fix your issue Alissa?

Ta,
S.

---

From: "Salz, Rich" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2015 22:31:07 +0000

> > (SSH), DNSSEC, PKIX, CMS, XML Digital Signatures, Kerberos and JSON.

And "XML Encryption"

---

From: Alissa Cooper <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2015 22:35:47 -0500

> On Dec 16, 2015, at 5:29 PM, Stephen Farrell <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> 

Yes. Or if you want to go back to the -03 text it would look like:

OLD
The protocols in scope are Secure Shell (SSH), DNSSEC, PKIX, CMS, XML Digital Signatures and potentially Kerberos and JSON.

NEW
The protocols the WG intends to work on are Secure Shell (SSH), DNSSEC, PKIX, CMS, XML Digital Signatures and potentially Kerberos and JSON.