• Revised I-D Needed - Issue raised by WG
  • Awaiting Expert Review/Resolution of Issues Raised
  • Awaiting External Review/Resolution of Issues Raised
  • Awaiting Merge with Other Document
  • Author or Editor Needed
  • Waiting for Referenced Document
  • Waiting for Referencing Document
  • Revised I-D Needed - Issue raised by WGLC
  • Revised I-D Needed - Issue raised by AD
  • Revised I-D Needed - Issue raised by IESG
  • Doc Shepherd Follow-up Underway
  • Other - see Comment Log

IETF :: eai

Current state: WG Document

Viewing the last 20 entries. Show full log.

2013-03-12 14:44 (System)

RFC published

2013-03-11 11:50 (System)

RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48-DONE from AUTH48

2012-11-26 15:39 (System)

IANA Action state changed to RFC-Ed-Ack from Waiting on RFC Editor

2012-11-26 08:11 Amy Vezza

State changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent

2012-11-21 22:50 (System)

IANA Action state changed to Waiting on RFC Editor from Waiting on Authors

2012-11-21 19:18 (System)

IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors from In Progress

2012-11-21 13:32 (System)

IANA Action state changed to In Progress

2012-11-21 11:32 Amy Vezza

State changed to Approved-announcement sent from Approved-announcement to be sent::Point Raised - writeup needed

2012-11-21 11:32 Amy Vezza

IESG has approved the document

2012-11-21 11:32 Amy Vezza

Closed "Approve" ballot

2012-11-21 11:30 Amy Vezza

Ballot approval text was generated

2012-11-16 17:09 Pete Resnick

State changed to Approved-announcement to be sent::Point Raised - writeup needed from IESG Evaluation::AD Followup

2012-11-12 04:16 Benoit Claise

[Ballot comment]
While the writeup mentions:

Consequently the base IMAP and POP3
documents are no longer dependent on particular downgrading
choices and that two methods presented are, to a considerable
extent, just examples.

I believe that the two methods should be Informational, as opposed to Standards Track.

However, I now see the following sentence, which was essential to me:
While this document specifies a well designed mechanism, it is only
an interim solution while clients are being upgraded
[I-D.ietf-eai-rfc5721bis] [I-D.ietf-eai-5738bis].

So I'll clear my DISCUSS.

Regards, Benoit

2012-11-12 04:16 Benoit Claise

[Ballot Position Update] Position for Benoit Claise has been changed to No Objection from Discuss

2012-11-06 14:44 Russ Housley

[Ballot Position Update] Position for Russ Housley has been changed to No Objection from Discuss

2012-10-22 02:27 Kazunori Fujiwara

New revision available

2012-09-27 09:56 Cindy Morgan

State changed to IESG Evaluation::AD Followup from IESG Evaluation

2012-09-27 08:15 Robert Sparks

[Ballot comment]
Consider reinforcing in the security considerations section that the actions described by this document do not include removing any signatures from the original message - discouraging a server implementation from trying to be 'helpful' by removing a signature they know will fail.

2012-09-27 08:15 Robert Sparks

[Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Robert Sparks

2012-09-27 07:44 Gonzalo Camarillo

[Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Gonzalo Camarillo

Viewing the last 20 entries. Show full log.