• 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 :: softwire

Current state: WG Document

Viewing the last 20 entries. Show full log.

2013-03-25 15:33 (System)

RFC published

2013-03-25 10:09 (System)

RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48-DONE from AUTH48

2013-03-15 09:22 Ted Lemon

Shepherding AD changed to Ted Lemon

2013-03-14 17:04 (System)

RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48 from RFC-EDITOR

2013-03-13 12:19 (System)

RFC Editor state changed to RFC-EDITOR from EDIT

2013-02-19 05:12 Amy Vezza

State changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent

2013-02-15 18:06 (System)

RFC Editor state changed to EDIT

2013-02-15 18:06 (System)

Announcement was received by RFC Editor

2013-02-15 11:55 (System)

IANA Action state changed to No IC

2013-02-15 09:33 Amy Vezza

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

2013-02-15 09:33 Amy Vezza

IESG has approved the document

2013-02-15 09:33 Amy Vezza

Closed "Approve" ballot

2013-02-15 09:33 Amy Vezza

State changed to IESG Evaluation from AD Followup

2013-02-15 09:32 Amy Vezza

Ballot approval text was generated

2013-02-15 09:31 Amy Vezza

Ballot writeup was changed

2013-02-14 08:34 Ron Bonica

[Ballot Position Update] Position for Ronald Bonica has been changed to No Objection from Discuss

2013-02-12 16:12 Russ Housley

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

2013-02-09 07:32 Stephen Farrell

[Ballot comment]
I've not checked if these comments still apply to -08 or not
so ignore text below as appropriate:-)

- 2.6 is probably also a bit wrong in how it talks about users.
I also wasn't sure what was meant by "an abused user"?

- 2.11 could do with a reference to rfc 6280, since that
represents our BCP for location and location privacy handling.

- 2.13: Just checking, but does PCP base handle this with the
simple security model? I can never recall. There was a recent
thread on the pcp list about that and it might be worth a look
to see if PCP-base is ok here. (The statement in this draft is
true though, PCP-base was designed to handle this, the question
is whether or not the security model in PCP-base does that well
enough.)

- secdir review [1] has a couple of nits

[1] http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/secdir/current/msg03594.html

2013-02-09 07:32 Stephen Farrell

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

2013-02-09 06:48 Ralph Droms

Ballot writeup was changed

Viewing the last 20 entries. Show full log.