Subject: [lamps] Zaheduzzaman Sarker's No Objection on draft-ietf-lamps-rfc7299-update-01: (with COMMENT)

From: Zaheduzzaman Sarker via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 05 Oct 2021 19:09:16 -0700

Zaheduzzaman Sarker has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-lamps-rfc7299-update-01: 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/blog/handling-iesg-ballot-positions/
for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lamps-rfc7299-update/

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

Thanks for this document.

A very minor comment - I think the first sentence in the abstract can be
removed and the 2nd sentence can be strengthened to cover the arc definition it
is referring to.

---

From: Russ Housley <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 6 Oct 2021 10:13:45 -0400

I hope this resolves your minor comment ...

Abstract

   RFC 7299 describes the object identifiers that were assigned by
   Public-Key Infrastructure using X.509 (PKIX) Working Group in an arc
   that was allocated by IANA (1.3.6.1.5.5.7).  A small number of object
   identifiers that were assigned in RFC 4212 are omitted from RFC 7299,
   and this document updates RFC 7299 to correct that oversight.

Russ

---

From: Zaheduzzaman Sarker <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 6 Oct 2021 14:45:04 +0000

Surely, it does. Thanks Russ.

BR
Zahed

    Abstract

    Russ