Last Call: Progressing RFCs 5343, 5590, 5591, and 6353 to Internet Standard

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
3 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Last Call: Progressing RFCs 5343, 5590, 5591, and 6353 to Internet Standard

IESG Secretary

The IESG has received a request from an individual participant to make
the following status changes:

- RFC5343 from Draft Standard to Internet Standard
    (Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP) Context EngineID
Discovery)

- RFC5590 from Draft Standard to Internet Standard
    (Transport Subsystem for the Simple Network Management Protocol
(SNMP))

- RFC6353 from Draft Standard to Internet Standard
    (Transport Layer Security (TLS) Transport Model for the Simple
Network Management Protocol (SNMP))

- RFC5591 from Draft Standard to Internet Standard
    (Transport Security Model for the Simple Network Management Protocol
(SNMP))

The supporting document for this request can be found here:

http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/status-change-5343-5590-5591-6353-to-internet-standard/

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
[hidden email] mailing lists by 2014-01-31. Exceptionally, comments may be
sent to [hidden email] instead. In either case, please retain the
beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

The affected documents can be obtained via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc5343/
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc5590/
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc6353/
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc5591/

IESG discussion of this request can be tracked via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/status-change-5343-5590-5591-6353-to-internet-standard/ballot/

The are no downrefs in RFCs 5343, 5590, and 5591.

RFC 6353 includes the following down refs:

[RFC4347] Rescorla, E. and N. Modadugu, "Datagram Transport Layer
Security", RFC 4347, April 2006.

[RFC4366] Blake-Wilson, S., Nystrom, M., Hopwood, D., Mikkelsen,
J., and T. Wright, "Transport Layer Security (TLS) Extensions", RFC 4366,
April 2006.

[RFC5246] Dierks, T. and E. Rescorla, "The Transport Layer Security (TLS)
Protocol Version 1.2", RFC 5246, August 2008.

[RFC5280] Cooper, D., Santesson, S., Farrell, S., Boeyen, S., Housley, R.,
and W. Polk, "Internet X.509 Public Key Infrastructure Certificate and
Certificate Revocation List (CRL) Profile", RFC 5280, May 2008.

[RFC5952] Kawamura, S. and M. Kawashima, "A Recommendation for
IPv6 Address Text Representation", RFC 5952, August 2010.
_______________________________________________
Isms mailing list
[hidden email]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/isms
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Last Call: Progressing RFCs 5343, 5590, 5591, and 6353 to Internet Standard

Jeffrey Hutzelman
On Fri, 2014-01-03 at 11:14 -0800, The IESG wrote:

> The IESG has received a request from an individual participant to make
> the following status changes:
>
> - RFC5343 from Draft Standard to Internet Standard
>     (Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP) Context EngineID
> Discovery)
>
> - RFC5590 from Draft Standard to Internet Standard
>     (Transport Subsystem for the Simple Network Management Protocol
> (SNMP))
>
> - RFC6353 from Draft Standard to Internet Standard
>     (Transport Layer Security (TLS) Transport Model for the Simple
> Network Management Protocol (SNMP))
>
> - RFC5591 from Draft Standard to Internet Standard
>     (Transport Security Model for the Simple Network Management Protocol
> (SNMP))

Wait, we're advancing TLSTM but not SSHTM ?

_______________________________________________
Isms mailing list
[hidden email]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/isms
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Last Call: Progressing RFCs 5343, 5590, 5591, and 6353 to Internet Standard

Juergen Schoenwaelder-2
On Sat, Jan 04, 2014 at 01:28:49PM -0500, Jeffrey Hutzelman wrote:

> On Fri, 2014-01-03 at 11:14 -0800, The IESG wrote:
> > The IESG has received a request from an individual participant to make
> > the following status changes:
> >
> > - RFC5343 from Draft Standard to Internet Standard
> >     (Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP) Context EngineID
> > Discovery)
> >
> > - RFC5590 from Draft Standard to Internet Standard
> >     (Transport Subsystem for the Simple Network Management Protocol
> > (SNMP))
> >
> > - RFC6353 from Draft Standard to Internet Standard
> >     (Transport Layer Security (TLS) Transport Model for the Simple
> > Network Management Protocol (SNMP))
> >
> > - RFC5591 from Draft Standard to Internet Standard
> >     (Transport Security Model for the Simple Network Management Protocol
> > (SNMP))
>
> Wait, we're advancing TLSTM but not SSHTM ?

Yes. These documents are all Draft Standards. The SSHTM is at Proposed
Standard. There was no interoperability testing done of the SSHTM when
the RFCs listed above were advanved to Draft Standards because we did
not have enough implementations.

The procedural step to move these Draft Standards to Standards in the
new 2-level standards process I believe is very different from the
procedural step needed to move SSHTM to Standard. If there are
sufficient SSHTM implementations to do interop testing, fine. But I
think this would be a separate activity.

/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/>
_______________________________________________
Isms mailing list
[hidden email]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/isms