Limited Additional Mechanisms for PKIX and SMIME
charter-ietf-lamps-03
- Ballots
- Approve (01-00)
- Ready for external review (01-00)
- Approve (01-00)
- Ready for external review (02-00)
- Approve (02-00)
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 02-00 and is now closed.
Ballot question: "Do we approve of this charter?"
Ben Campbell Yes
Alissa Cooper Yes
Benjamin Kaduk Yes
Comment (2018-06-07 for -02-00)
No email
send info
send info
It looks like we didn't note last time that: % 1. Specify a discovery mechanism for CAA records to replace the one % described in RFC 6844. Implementation experience has demonstrated an % ambiguity in the handling of CNAME and DNAME records during discovery % in RFC 6844, and subsequent discussion has suggested that a different % discovery approach would resolve limitations inherent in that approach. is potentially ambiguous about "that approach" -- it's the RFC 6844 one that we want to fix, not the new one, of course.
Eric Rescorla Yes
Adam Roach Yes
Ignas Bagdonas No Objection
Deborah Brungard No Objection
Spencer Dawkins No Objection
Comment (2018-06-01 for -02-00)
No email
send info
send info
I'm a No Objection, but I had comments on this charter when we balloted for External Review, and it looks like this is the same version that I commented on. Thread started at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spasm/hvivetNqR4T4xfEtSsOKd4auw18. Do the right thing, of course. Spencer
Suresh Krishnan No Objection
Warren Kumari No Objection
Comment (2018-06-06 for -02-00)
No email
send info
send info
“Said it before, and I’ll say it again...”