• 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 :: roll

Current state: WG Document

Viewing the last 20 entries. Show full log.

2013-04-09 10:14 (System)

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

2013-04-05 13:44 Cindy Morgan

State changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent

2013-04-05 10:55 (System)

RFC Editor state changed to MISSREF

2013-04-05 10:55 (System)

Announcement was received by RFC Editor

2013-04-04 16:04 (System)

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

2013-04-04 14:27 (System)

IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors from In Progress

2013-04-04 13:19 (System)

IANA Action state changed to In Progress

2013-04-04 06:44 Amy Vezza

State changed to Approved-announcement sent from Approved-announcement to be sent

2013-04-04 06:44 Amy Vezza

IESG has approved the document

2013-04-04 06:44 Amy Vezza

Closed "Approve" ballot

2013-04-04 06:44 Amy Vezza

State changed to Approved-announcement to be sent from IESG Evaluation::AD Followup

2013-04-04 06:29 Adrian Farrel

Ballot approval text was generated

2013-04-03 06:16 Adrian Farrel

Ballot writeup was changed

2013-04-03 05:58 Stephen Farrell

[Ballot comment]

Thanks for addressing my discuss. On the basis that this is an
experimental-track specification and you're depending on the
security from 6550, your changes are enough to clear my
discuss. I'd be really interested in knowing how this goes,
when people implement/deploy, given that you need all
routers to share the same key.

Two other comments,

- its not clear to me if there are cases where a router will
pass on a "secure MO" without changing the message,
but where the router doesn't have the key required. It'd
be good to say if a router needs to drop the message in
that case or not.

- I'm also unclear about that the starting point has to
do if a "secure MO" it sent out gets dropped and the
starting point never hears anything back.

Both of the above may be clear in the document already
(apologies if so) but I didn't immediately see what's
supposed to happen.

2013-04-03 05:58 Stephen Farrell

[Ballot Position Update] Position for Stephen Farrell has been changed to No Objection from Discuss

2013-04-01 11:00 (System)

Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised ID Needed

2013-04-01 11:00 Mukul Goyal

New revision available

2013-03-16 18:08 Michael Richardson

Changed shepherd to JP Vasseur

2013-02-07 10:23 Amy Vezza

State changed to IESG Evaluation::Revised ID Needed from IESG Evaluation

2013-02-07 07:46 Stephen Farrell

[Ballot discuss]

I just don't get how a secure MO can work - do you need
every intermediary to share keys so they can all modify
the message? Please explain. (I didn't find any
description of how a "secure MO" is generated or
processed at all so this has to be a bit of an
open-ended discuss for now sorry.)

Viewing the last 20 entries. Show full log.