Subject: Call for agenda items

From: Stefan Santesson <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 03 Mar 2009 12:29:14 +0100

IETF in San Francisco is coming up.

PKIX has a 2.5 hour session directly on the Monday morning March 23 at 0900

Please let me know if you have anything you whish to present at the meeting.
At least one representative of each active WG document MUST inform me if you
need a time slot for that document or not.
 
I would like to have your request for timeslot by Wednesday March 11.
After that we can always do late adjustments but I appreciate to have your
request as early as possible.

Thank you.

/Stefan

---

From: Massimiliano Pala <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 05 Mar 2009 06:31:01 -0500

Ciao Stefan, Steve, and pkix-wg,

I would need 10 mins for reporting on the activities about PRQP - we have been
working both with the TERENA (TACAR) and Federal Bridge folks and they are going
to deploy PRQP (at least as experimental). Some interest in the PRQP has also
been expressed by some commercial vendors... so I think that the WG should be
informed of these activities.

Also, from the collaboration with the DHC WG, we have changed the draft and it
seems that we need IANA to assign identifiers for DHCP (both v4 and v6).

One concern that I have is that IANA would not be so keen in assigning DHCP
service identifiers for an experimental-track protocol, but the deployment
of PRQP is actually happening and I would like to have at least those identifiers
standardized before this actually happens. I am not sure about what we shall do
now. The PRQP will be included in the next release of OpenCA as well, therefore
there will soon be a quite large installation base (besides the aforementioned
communities).

Shall we move the status from experimental to standard track ? Is it too early ?
I see that within the WG there is not much activity about PRQP, but in the real
PKI world and Computing Grid communities the situation is different.

I would like to know the opinion of the chair(s) and the people in the WG...

Ciao,
Max

Stefan Santesson wrote:
> *_At least one representative of each active WG document MUST inform me 
> if you need a time slot for that document or not.
> _*
> After that we can always do late adjustments but I appreciate to have 
> your request as early as possible.

-- 

Best Regards,

	Massimiliano Pala

--o------------------------------------------------------------------------
Massimiliano Pala [OpenCA Project Manager]  [email-masked]
                                                  [email-masked]

Dartmouth Computer Science Dept               Home Phone: +1 (603) 369-9332
PKI/Trust Laboratory                          Work Phone: +1 (603) 646-9179
--o------------------------------------------------------------------------

People who think they know everything are a great annoyance to those of us
who do.
							   -- Isaac Asimov

---

From: Stefan Santesson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2009 13:56:14 +0100

Max,

What you say is very interesting. First of all sort out the IANA issue.
Secondly we should discuss a possible upgrade of this document to standards
track based on the deployment.

You have your time slot.

/Stefan

---

From: Stefan Santesson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2009 03:13:45 +0100

The preliminary agenda is posted.

http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/09mar/agenda/pkix.txt

I lack information about 3 active WG documents:
 - 3161bis (Time stamping),
 - New ASN.1
 - SHA2 for DSA and ECDSA

Please let me know if anyone is presenting anything bout these document
status.
Also, we are having the Monday Morning session. In order for me to be able
to prepare for the meeting, I would like the slides of all presenters before
1700 (5 pm) on Sunday March 22

Thank you.

Stefan Santesson
AAA-sec.com

---

From: Paul Hoffman <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2009 09:49:12 -0700

>I lack information about 3 active WG documents:

We have posted a new draft addressing the WGLC comments, but do not need to spend face-to-face time telling people that fact. We will send out a request for people to re-check the modules soon but, again, don't need to take up meeting time doing that.

--Paul Hoffman, Director
--VPN Consortium

---

From: Stephen Kent <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2009 20:15:59 -0400

At 9:49 AM -0700 3/12/09, Paul Hoffman wrote:
>We have posted a new draft addressing the WGLC comments, but do not 
>need to spend face-to-face time telling people that fact. We will 
>send out a request for people to re-check the modules soon but, 
>again, don't need to take up meeting time doing that.
>
>--Paul Hoffman, Director
>--VPN Consortium

Paul,

Please post a message describing the changes made in response to WGLC comments.

Thanks,

Steve