IETF conflict review for draft-hartmann-default-port-for-irc-via-tls-ssl
conflict-review-hartmann-default-port-for-irc-via-tls-ssl-00
Document history
Date | Rev. | By | Action |
---|---|---|---|
2014-01-30
|
00 | Cindy Morgan | The following approval message was sent From: The IESG To: "Nevil Brownlee" , draft-hartmann-default-port-for-irc-via-tls-ssl@tools.ietf.org Cc: The IESG , , Subject: Results of IETF-conflict review for … The following approval message was sent From: The IESG To: "Nevil Brownlee" , draft-hartmann-default-port-for-irc-via-tls-ssl@tools.ietf.org Cc: The IESG , , Subject: Results of IETF-conflict review for draft-hartmann-default-port-for-irc-via-tls-ssl-09 The IESG has completed a review of draft-hartmann-default-port-for-irc-via-tls-ssl-09 consistent with RFC5742. The IESG has no problem with the publication of 'Default Port for IRC via TLS/SSL' as an Informational RFC. The IESG has concluded that there is no conflict between this document and IETF work. The IESG would also like the RFC-Editor to review the comments in the datatracker related to this document and determine whether or not they merit incorporation into the document. Comments may exist in both the ballot and the history log. The IESG review is documented at: http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/conflict-review-hartmann-default-port-for-irc-via-tls-ssl/ A URL of the reviewed Internet Draft is: http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-hartmann-default-port-for-irc-via-tls-ssl/ The process for such documents is described at http://www.rfc-editor.org/indsubs.html Thank you, The IESG Secretary |
2014-01-30
|
00 | Cindy Morgan | IESG has approved the conflict review response |
2014-01-30
|
00 | Cindy Morgan | Closed "Approve" ballot |
2014-01-30
|
00 | Cindy Morgan | State changed to Approved No Problem - announcement sent from Approved No Problem - announcement to be sent |
2014-01-30
|
00 | Cindy Morgan | State changed to Approved No Problem - announcement to be sent from IESG Evaluation |
2014-01-30
|
00 | Stephen Farrell | [Ballot comment] The authors changed the UPDATEs stuff so the 5742 review is now ok. |
2014-01-30
|
00 | Stephen Farrell | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Stephen Farrell has been changed to No Objection from Discuss |
2013-05-14
|
00 | Stephen Farrell | [Ballot discuss] Just taking over Robert's DISCUSS position to get it fixed. This document currently claims to Update RFCs 2812 and 2813, which are IETF … [Ballot discuss] Just taking over Robert's DISCUSS position to get it fixed. This document currently claims to Update RFCs 2812 and 2813, which are IETF stream documents that went through a Last Call. It's not clear it actually does, and that these are meant as "see also". If that's right, I suggest we ask these be removed. If that's not right, and these actually do update those RFCs, we should discuss whether this document is in the correct stream. |
2013-05-14
|
00 | Stephen Farrell | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Stephen Farrell has been changed to Discuss from Yes |
2013-02-06
|
00 | Wesley Eddy | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Wesley Eddy |
2013-02-06
|
00 | Gonzalo Camarillo | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Gonzalo Camarillo |
2013-02-06
|
00 | Ralph Droms | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Ralph Droms |
2013-02-06
|
00 | Stewart Bryant | [Ballot comment] I agree with Robert's Discuss. I also have concerns about giving this document any status with the port number included until it has … [Ballot comment] I agree with Robert's Discuss. I also have concerns about giving this document any status with the port number included until it has been through port number review by the designated experts since this may precipitate a collision in the wild. |
2013-02-06
|
00 | Stewart Bryant | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Stewart Bryant |
2013-02-06
|
00 | Martin Stiemerling | [Ballot comment] In support of Robert's DISCUSS. |
2013-02-06
|
00 | Martin Stiemerling | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Martin Stiemerling |
2013-02-06
|
00 | Robert Sparks | [Ballot discuss] This document currently claims to Update RFCs 2812 and 2813, which are IETF stream documents that went through a Last Call. It's not … [Ballot discuss] This document currently claims to Update RFCs 2812 and 2813, which are IETF stream documents that went through a Last Call. It's not clear it actually does, and that these are meant as "see also". If that's right, I suggest we ask these be removed. If that's not right, and these actually do update those RFCs, we should discuss whether this document is in the correct stream. |
2013-02-06
|
00 | Robert Sparks | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded for Robert Sparks |
2013-02-05
|
00 | Sean Turner | [Ballot comment] Note that if this document had come through the IETF stream I probably would have asked for a bit more information about the … [Ballot comment] Note that if this document had come through the IETF stream I probably would have asked for a bit more information about the certificates: s2.3.1/2: why only common name what about putting the FQDN/nick in the subject alt extension? s2.3.1/2: when you say should verify that the certificate validates back to an installed Trust Anchor as in [RFC5280]? s2.3.2: Should the server also verify the client's cert? WRT to naming matching should RFC 6125 be followed? |
2013-02-05
|
00 | Sean Turner | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Sean Turner |
2013-02-04
|
00 | Benoît Claise | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Benoit Claise |
2013-02-04
|
00 | Brian Haberman | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Brian Haberman |
2013-02-03
|
00 | Ron Bonica | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Ronald Bonica |
2013-02-02
|
00 | Pete Resnick | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Pete Resnick |
2013-02-01
|
00 | Russ Housley | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Russ Housley |
2013-01-30
|
00 | Adrian Farrel | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Adrian Farrel |
2013-01-29
|
00 | Barry Leiba | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Barry Leiba |
2013-01-28
|
00 | Stephen Farrell | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Stephen Farrell |
2013-01-28
|
00 | Stephen Farrell | Created "Approve" ballot |
2013-01-28
|
00 | Stephen Farrell | State changed to IESG Evaluation from AD Review |
2013-01-28
|
00 | Stephen Farrell | New version available: conflict-review-hartmann-default-port-for-irc-via-tls-ssl-00.txt |
2013-01-17
|
00 | Stephen Farrell | Telechat date has been changed to 2013-02-07 from 2013-01-24 |
2013-01-17
|
00 | Stephen Farrell | Shepherding AD changed to Stephen Farrell |
2013-01-17
|
00 | Stephen Farrell | State changed to AD Review from Needs Shepherd |
2013-01-15
|
00 | Amy Vezza | The draft draft-hartmann-default-port-for-irc-via-tls-ssl-08 is ready for publication from the Independent Stream. Please ask IESG to review it, as set out in RFC 5742. The … The draft draft-hartmann-default-port-for-irc-via-tls-ssl-08 is ready for publication from the Independent Stream. Please ask IESG to review it, as set out in RFC 5742. The following is some background for this draft, please forward it to IESG along with this request ... This draft "describes the commonly accepted practice of listening on TCP port 6697 for incoming IRC connections encrypted via TLS/SSL." It has IANA Considerations; it requests TCP port 6697 for Internet Relay Chat via TLS/SSL. The author has discussed this with Pearly Liang. It was reviewed by James Schaad and Mykyta Yevstifeyev. |
2013-01-15
|
00 | Amy Vezza | Placed on agenda for telechat - 2013-01-24 |
2013-01-15
|
00 | Amy Vezza | IETF conflict review requested |