Subject: [sidr] request for wg adoption of draft-ietf-sidr-ta-00.txt

From: Sandra Murphy <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2009 22:32:16 -0400 (Eastern Daylight Time)

There were objections yesterday in the sidr meeting to the way that 
draft-ietf-sidr-ta-00.txt became a wg draft.

draft-ietf-sidr-ta-00.txt was an extract of an important topic (trust 
anchors) from the res certs profile document.  As this was work that had 
already been a working group work item, I suggested that it should be 
submitted as a wg draft, rather than an individual draft.

That decision meant that the wg missed an opportunity to explicitly accept 
this draft as a working group item.

Those who objected said that they thought the missing process step was 
needed.

So I am requesting that the working group members state whether or not 
they accept draft draft-ietf-sidr-ta-00.txt as a working group draft.

Please reply (yes or no, both are important) to the list by Thurs 2 April 
2009.

(The deadline is Thursday rather than Wednesday because (a) it is late and 
(b) that would make the deadline 1 April 2009, which would send the wrong 
message.)

--Sandy

---

From: Matt Lepinski <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2009 02:46:29 -0400

I support the adoption of draft-ietf-sidr-ta-00 as a SIDR working group 
document.

- Matt Lepinski

Sandra Murphy wrote:

> anchors) from the res certs profile document.  As this was work that 
> had already been a working group work item, I suggested that it should 
> be submitted as a wg draft, rather than an individual draft.
>
> That decision meant that the wg missed an opportunity to explicitly 
> accept this draft as a working group item.
>
> Please reply (yes or no, both are important) to the list by Thurs 2 
> April 2009.
>
> (The deadline is Thursday rather than Wednesday because (a) it is late 
> and (b) that would make the deadline 1 April 2009, which would send 
> the wrong message.)
>
> --Sandy
>
> _______________________________________________
> sidr mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
>

---

From: Terry Manderson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2009 18:31:55 +1000

I support draft-ietf-sidr-ta-00 becoming a work group item.

Terry

On 26/03/2009, at 12:32 PM, Sandra Murphy wrote:

> draft-ietf-sidr-ta-00.txt was an extract of an important topic  
> (trust anchors) from the res certs profile document.  As this was  
> work that had already been a working group work item, I suggested  
> that it should be submitted as a wg draft, rather than an individual  
> draft.
>
> Those who objected said that they thought the missing process step  
> was needed.
>
> So I am requesting that the working group members state whether or  
> not they accept draft draft-ietf-sidr-ta-00.txt as a working group  
> draft.
>
> (The deadline is Thursday rather than Wednesday because (a) it is  
> late and (b) that would make the deadline 1 April 2009, which would  
> send the wrong message.)
>
> --Sandy
>

---

From: Stephen Kent <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2009 11:50:23 -0400

I support adoption of the TA draft as a SIDR WG document.

Steve

---

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2009 09:16:33 -0700

> they accept draft draft-ietf-sidr-ta-00.txt as a working group draft.

i am happy to accept the work in the wg if only to chop the hell out of
it.

i think the document is sorely broken and the complexity is a sick
kludge to deal with rir disfunction and machiavellian politics.

randy

---

From: John Curran <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2009 09:26:39 -0700

/John

---

From: John Curran <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2009 09:27:41 -0700

I also support the draft as a WG document.

/John

---

From: Danny McPherson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2009 10:54:29 -0600

I support the adoption of sidr-ta as a WG document.

-danny

---

From: Russ Housley <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2009 21:00:19 -0400

>I am requesting that the working group members state whether or not 

Since the certificate profile was already accepted by the WG, and the 
subject of draft-ietf-sidr-ta-00.txt was previously part of that 
certificate profile document, it seems completely reasonable for this 
to go straight to a WG document.

Please work on this important topic.

Russ

---

From: Robert Kisteleki <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 Mar 2009 10:23:45 +0100

I also support the adoption of this document.

Robert

Sandra Murphy wrote:
> and (b) that would make the deadline 1 April 2009, which would send the 
> wrong message.)
> 
> --Sandy
>

---

From: Robert Loomans <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 28 Mar 2009 06:57:42 +1000

Yes, please adopt this draft as a WG item.

Rob

--  
Robert Loomans

---

From: Roque Gagliano <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 28 Mar 2009 17:27:01 -0700

I support this document as WG item.

Roque Gagliano
LACNIC.

>> that it should be submitted as a wg draft, rather than an  
>> individual draft.
>>

---

From: ALAIN AINA <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 1 Apr 2009 00:42:08 +0000

> late and (b) that would make the deadline 1 April 2009, which would  

I also  support the draft as WG draft.

--alain