Subject: Re: [Isms] updated TLS drafts published: -06 and -07

From: Juergen Schoenwaelder <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 1 Feb 2010 16:03:54 +0100

On Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 01:42:03AM +0100, Wes Hardaker wrote:
 
> This document has no outstanding issues left with it that have been
> brought up by working group members.  I believe it is ready for it
> to be submitted to the IESG.

I did the required idnits check and here is the result (trimmed down
to thing that might matter):

  == You're using the IETF Trust Provisions' Section 6.b License Notice from 12
     Sep 2009 rather than the newer Notice from 28 Dec 2009.  (See
     http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info/)

We might have to switch to the 28 Dec 2009 version.

  -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 4366
     (Obsoleted by RFC 5246)

This seems to be intentional.

  -- No information found for draft-seggelmann-tls-dtls-heartbeat - is the name
     correct?

The name seems to be correct; no clue why idnits fails on this one.

/js

-- 
Juergen Schoenwaelder           Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH
Phone: +49 421 200 3587         Campus Ring 1, 28759 Bremen, Germany
Fax:   +49 421 200 3103         <http://www.jacobs-university.de/>

---

From: "tom.petch" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 1 Feb 2010 17:13:58 +0100

----- Original Message -----
From: "Juergen Schoenwaelder" <[email-masked]>
Sent: Monday, February 01, 2010 4:03 PM

> The name seems to be correct; no clue why idnits fails on this one.

Perhaps because it has expired; it was published 6 Jul 2009 so is almost a
month gone by now.

Tom Petch

---

From: Wes Hardaker <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 01 Feb 2010 11:30:40 -0800

>>>>> On Mon, 1 Feb 2010 17:13:58 +0100, "tom.petch" <[email-masked]> said:

>> -- No information found for draft-seggelmann-tls-dtls-heartbeat - is the
tp> name
>> The name seems to be correct; no clue why idnits fails on this one.

tp> Perhaps because it has expired; it was published 6 Jul 2009 so is almost a
tp> month gone by now.

No, it's actually been failing longer than that and I didn't know why 2
months ago either.  I suspect it's a bug in their database files or something.
-- 
Wes Hardaker
Cobham Analytic Solutions

---

From: Wes Hardaker <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 01 Feb 2010 11:32:00 -0800

>>>>> On Mon, 1 Feb 2010 16:03:54 +0100, Juergen Schoenwaelder <[email-masked]> said:

JS> == You're using the IETF Trust Provisions' Section 6.b License Notice from 12
JS> Sep 2009 rather than the newer Notice from 28 Dec 2009.  (See
JS> http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info/)

JS> We might have to switch to the 28 Dec 2009 version.

I'll go look at it.  I didn't think we could change the notice if it was
published before the magic date, but I bet they do have a new wording
of the same condition.  I didn't think about that.

JS> -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 4366
JS> (Obsoleted by RFC 5246)

JS> This seems to be intentional.

Yep.

---

From: Wes Hardaker <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 02 Feb 2010 03:59:23 -0800

>>>>> On Mon, 01 Feb 2010 11:32:00 -0800, Wes Hardaker <[email-masked]> said:

That's the only available pre5378 trust text that the latest version of
xml2rfc contains.  We do need the pre5378 text escape clause since some
of the original text came from people that I'd have a hard (impossible)
time to track down.
-- 
Wes Hardaker
Cobham Analytic Solutions