• 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 :: websec

Current state: WG Document

Viewing the last 20 entries. Show full log.

2012-11-20 00:23 (System)

RFC published

2012-10-03 12:18 (System)

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

2012-10-03 11:44 Cindy Morgan

State changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent

2012-10-02 13:56 (System)

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

2012-10-02 13:21 (System)

IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors from In Progress

2012-10-02 11:27 (System)

IANA Action state changed to In Progress

2012-10-02 06:37 Amy Vezza

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

2012-10-02 06:37 Amy Vezza

IESG has approved the document

2012-10-02 06:37 Amy Vezza

Closed "Approve" ballot

2012-10-02 06:35 Amy Vezza

Ballot approval text was generated

2012-10-02 06:22 Barry Leiba

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

2012-09-29 16:06 Robert Sparks

[Ballot comment]
Thanks for addressing all of my comments.

2012-09-29 16:06 Robert Sparks

[Ballot Position Update] Position for Robert Sparks has been changed to Yes from Discuss

2012-09-29 14:23 (System)

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

2012-09-29 14:23 Jeff Hodges

New revision available

2012-09-27 09:56 Cindy Morgan

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

2012-09-27 08:26 Pete Resnick

[Ballot comment]
6.1:

Additional directives extending the semantic functionality of the STS
header field can be defined in other specifications, with a registry
(having an IANA policy definition of IETF Review [RFC5226]) defined
for them at such time.

Is IETF Review really necessary? Seems to me "Specification Required" is more than sufficient, and I would not be completely averse to "First Come First Served".

15: Why not set up the directives registry now?

2012-09-27 08:26 Pete Resnick

[Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Pete Resnick

2012-09-27 07:44 Gonzalo Camarillo

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

2012-09-27 06:39 Benoit Claise

[Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Benoit Claise

Viewing the last 20 entries. Show full log.