Skip to main content

Progressing RFCs 5343, 5590, 5591, and 6353 to Internet Standard
status-change-5343-5590-5591-6353-to-internet-standard-01

Revision differences

Document history

Date Rev. By Action
2014-02-10
01 Amy Vezza
The following approval message was sent
From: The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org>
To: IETF-Announce <ietf-announce@ietf.org>
Cc: RFC Editor <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>, wjhns1@hardakers.net, …
The following approval message was sent
From: The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org>
To: IETF-Announce <ietf-announce@ietf.org>
Cc: RFC Editor <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>, wjhns1@hardakers.net, j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de, ietfdbh@comcast.net, mundy@tislabs.com
Subject: Protocol Action: Transport Security Model for the Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP) to Internet Standard

The IESG has approved changing the status of the following document:
- Transport Security Model for the Simple Network Management Protocol
(SNMP)
  (rfc5591) to Internet Standard

This protocol action is documented at:
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/status-change-5343-5590-5591-6353-to-internet-standard/

A URL of the affected document is:
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc5591/

Status Change Details:

RFCs 5343, 5590, 5591, 6353 and currently have an IETF standards
status of Draft Standard, which is now an obsolete status.  This
note requests reclassifying them to Internet Standard.

  (1) There are at least two independent interoperating implementations
      with widespread deployment and successful operational experience.

Based on the IR (Interoperability Report)
(http://www.ietf.org/iesg/implementation/report-rfc5343-5590-5591-5953.txt)
there are at least two independent interoperating implementations with
widespread and successful operation experience.

  (2) There are no errata against the specification that would cause a
      new implementation to fail to interoperate with deployed ones.

There are no errata against RFC 5343, RFC 5590, RFC 5591, and
RFC 6353.

  (3) There are no unused features in the specification that greatly
      increase implementation complexity.

We believe there are no unused features in the specification that
greatly increase implementation complexity.

  (4) If the technology required to implement the specification
      requires patented or otherwise controlled technology, then the
      set of implementations must demonstrate at least two independent,
      separate and successful uses of the licensing process.

The criteria is N/A.

Personnel

  Sean Turner is the responsible Area Director.



2014-02-10
01 Amy Vezza
The following approval message was sent
From: The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org>
To: IETF-Announce <ietf-announce@ietf.org>
Cc: RFC Editor <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>, wjhns1@hardakers.net, …
The following approval message was sent
From: The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org>
To: IETF-Announce <ietf-announce@ietf.org>
Cc: RFC Editor <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>, wjhns1@hardakers.net, j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de, ietfdbh@comcast.net, mundy@tislabs.com
Subject: Protocol Action: Transport Layer Security (TLS) Transport Model for the Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP) to Internet Standard

The IESG has approved changing the status of the following document:
- Transport Layer Security (TLS) Transport Model for the Simple Network
Management Protocol (SNMP)
  (rfc6353) to Internet Standard

This protocol action is documented at:
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/status-change-5343-5590-5591-6353-to-internet-standard/

A URL of the affected document is:
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc6353/

Status Change Details:

RFCs 5343, 5590, 5591, 6353 and currently have an IETF standards
status of Draft Standard, which is now an obsolete status.  This
note requests reclassifying them to Internet Standard.

  (1) There are at least two independent interoperating implementations
      with widespread deployment and successful operational experience.

Based on the IR (Interoperability Report)
(http://www.ietf.org/iesg/implementation/report-rfc5343-5590-5591-5953.txt)
there are at least two independent interoperating implementations with
widespread and successful operation experience.

  (2) There are no errata against the specification that would cause a
      new implementation to fail to interoperate with deployed ones.

There are no errata against RFC 5343, RFC 5590, RFC 5591, and
RFC 6353.

  (3) There are no unused features in the specification that greatly
      increase implementation complexity.

We believe there are no unused features in the specification that
greatly increase implementation complexity.

  (4) If the technology required to implement the specification
      requires patented or otherwise controlled technology, then the
      set of implementations must demonstrate at least two independent,
      separate and successful uses of the licensing process.

The criteria is N/A.

Personnel

  Sean Turner is the responsible Area Director.



2014-02-10
01 Amy Vezza
The following approval message was sent
From: The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org>
To: IETF-Announce <ietf-announce@ietf.org>
Cc: RFC Editor <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>, wjhns1@hardakers.net, …
The following approval message was sent
From: The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org>
To: IETF-Announce <ietf-announce@ietf.org>
Cc: RFC Editor <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>, wjhns1@hardakers.net, j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de, ietfdbh@comcast.net, mundy@tislabs.com
Subject: Protocol Action: Transport Subsystem for the Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP) to Internet Standard

The IESG has approved changing the status of the following document:
- Transport Subsystem for the Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP)
  (rfc5590) to Internet Standard

This protocol action is documented at:
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/status-change-5343-5590-5591-6353-to-internet-standard/

A URL of the affected document is:
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc5590/

Status Change Details:

RFCs 5343, 5590, 5591, 6353 and currently have an IETF standards
status of Draft Standard, which is now an obsolete status.  This
note requests reclassifying them to Internet Standard.

  (1) There are at least two independent interoperating implementations
      with widespread deployment and successful operational experience.

Based on the IR (Interoperability Report)
(http://www.ietf.org/iesg/implementation/report-rfc5343-5590-5591-5953.txt)
there are at least two independent interoperating implementations with
widespread and successful operation experience.

  (2) There are no errata against the specification that would cause a
      new implementation to fail to interoperate with deployed ones.

There are no errata against RFC 5343, RFC 5590, RFC 5591, and
RFC 6353.

  (3) There are no unused features in the specification that greatly
      increase implementation complexity.

We believe there are no unused features in the specification that
greatly increase implementation complexity.

  (4) If the technology required to implement the specification
      requires patented or otherwise controlled technology, then the
      set of implementations must demonstrate at least two independent,
      separate and successful uses of the licensing process.

The criteria is N/A.

Personnel

  Sean Turner is the responsible Area Director.



2014-02-10
01 Amy Vezza
The following approval message was sent
From: The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org>
To: IETF-Announce <ietf-announce@ietf.org>
Cc: RFC Editor <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>, wjhns1@hardakers.net, …
The following approval message was sent
From: The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org>
To: IETF-Announce <ietf-announce@ietf.org>
Cc: RFC Editor <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>, wjhns1@hardakers.net, j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de, ietfdbh@comcast.net, mundy@tislabs.com
Subject: Protocol Action: Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP) Context EngineID Discovery to Internet Standard

The IESG has approved changing the status of the following document:
- Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP) Context EngineID Discovery
  (rfc5343) to Internet Standard

This protocol action is documented at:
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/status-change-5343-5590-5591-6353-to-internet-standard/

A URL of the affected document is:
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc5343/

Status Change Details:

RFCs 5343, 5590, 5591, 6353 and currently have an IETF standards
status of Draft Standard, which is now an obsolete status.  This
note requests reclassifying them to Internet Standard.

  (1) There are at least two independent interoperating implementations
      with widespread deployment and successful operational experience.

Based on the IR (Interoperability Report)
(http://www.ietf.org/iesg/implementation/report-rfc5343-5590-5591-5953.txt)
there are at least two independent interoperating implementations with
widespread and successful operation experience.

  (2) There are no errata against the specification that would cause a
      new implementation to fail to interoperate with deployed ones.

There are no errata against RFC 5343, RFC 5590, RFC 5591, and
RFC 6353.

  (3) There are no unused features in the specification that greatly
      increase implementation complexity.

We believe there are no unused features in the specification that
greatly increase implementation complexity.

  (4) If the technology required to implement the specification
      requires patented or otherwise controlled technology, then the
      set of implementations must demonstrate at least two independent,
      separate and successful uses of the licensing process.

The criteria is N/A.

Personnel

  Sean Turner is the responsible Area Director.



2014-02-10
01 Amy Vezza IESG has approved the status change
2014-02-10
01 Amy Vezza Closed "Approve" ballot
2014-02-10
01 Amy Vezza RFC Status Change state changed to Approved - announcement sent from Approved - announcement to be sent
2014-02-06
01 Cindy Morgan RFC Status Change state changed to Approved - announcement to be sent from IESG Evaluation
2014-02-06
01 Gonzalo Camarillo [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Gonzalo Camarillo
2014-02-06
01 Ted Lemon [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Ted Lemon
2014-02-05
01 Richard Barnes [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Richard Barnes
2014-02-05
01 Barry Leiba [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Barry Leiba
2014-02-05
01 Jari Arkko [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Jari Arkko
2014-02-05
01 Stewart Bryant [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Stewart Bryant
2014-02-05
01 Adrian Farrel [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Adrian Farrel
2014-02-04
01 Benoît Claise [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Benoit Claise
2014-02-04
01 Stephen Farrell [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Stephen Farrell
2014-02-04
01 Martin Stiemerling [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Martin Stiemerling
2014-02-03
01 Spencer Dawkins [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Spencer Dawkins
2014-02-03
01 Brian Haberman [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Brian Haberman
2014-02-02
01 Joel Jaeggli [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Joel Jaeggli
2014-02-02
01 Pete Resnick [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Pete Resnick
2014-01-31
01 Sean Turner [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Sean Turner
2014-01-31
01 Sean Turner Created "Approve" ballot
2014-01-31
01 Sean Turner RFC Status Change state changed to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead
2014-01-31
01 (System) State changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from In Last Call
2014-01-03
01 Amy Vezza
The following Last Call announcement was sent out:<br><br>From: The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org>
To: IETF-Announce <ietf-announce@ietf.org>
Cc: isms@ietf.org
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Sender: <iesg-secretary@ietf.org …
The following Last Call announcement was sent out:<br><br>From: The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org>
To: IETF-Announce <ietf-announce@ietf.org>
Cc: isms@ietf.org
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Sender: <iesg-secretary@ietf.org>
Subject: Last Call: Progressing RFCs 5343, 5590, 5591, and 6353 to Internet Standard


The IESG has received a request from an individual participant to make
the following status changes:

- RFC5343 from Draft Standard to Internet Standard
    (Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP) Context EngineID
Discovery)

- RFC5590 from Draft Standard to Internet Standard
    (Transport Subsystem for the Simple Network Management Protocol
(SNMP))

- RFC6353 from Draft Standard to Internet Standard
    (Transport Layer Security (TLS) Transport Model for the Simple
Network Management Protocol (SNMP))

- RFC5591 from Draft Standard to Internet Standard
    (Transport Security Model for the Simple Network Management Protocol
(SNMP))

The supporting document for this request can be found here:

http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/status-change-5343-5590-5591-6353-to-internet-standard/

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2014-01-31. Exceptionally, comments may be
sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the
beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

The affected documents can be obtained via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc5343/
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc5590/
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc6353/
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc5591/

IESG discussion of this request can be tracked via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/status-change-5343-5590-5591-6353-to-internet-standard/ballot/

The are no downrefs in RFCs 5343, 5590, and 5591.

RFC 6353 includes the following down refs:

[RFC4347] Rescorla, E. and N. Modadugu, "Datagram Transport Layer
Security", RFC 4347, April 2006.

[RFC4366] Blake-Wilson, S., Nystrom, M., Hopwood, D., Mikkelsen,
J., and T. Wright, "Transport Layer Security (TLS) Extensions", RFC 4366,
April 2006.

[RFC5246] Dierks, T. and E. Rescorla, "The Transport Layer Security (TLS)
Protocol Version 1.2", RFC 5246, August 2008.

[RFC5280] Cooper, D., Santesson, S., Farrell, S., Boeyen, S., Housley, R.,
and W. Polk, "Internet X.509 Public Key Infrastructure Certificate and
Certificate Revocation List (CRL) Profile", RFC 5280, May 2008.

[RFC5952] Kawamura, S. and M. Kawashima, "A Recommendation for
IPv6 Address Text Representation", RFC 5952, August 2010.
2014-01-03
01 Amy Vezza State changed to In Last Call from None
2014-01-03
01 Sean Turner Last call was requested
2014-01-03
01 Sean Turner Ballot approval text was generated
2014-01-03
01 Sean Turner Ballot writeup was generated
2014-01-03
01 Sean Turner State changed to Last Call Requested from AD Review
2014-01-03
01 Sean Turner New version available: status-change-5343-5590-5591-6353-to-internet-standard-01.txt
2014-01-03
00 Sean Turner Last call announcement was changed
2014-01-03
00 Sean Turner Last call announcement was changed
2014-01-03
00 Sean Turner Last call announcement was generated
2014-01-03
00 Sean Turner New version available: status-change-5343-5590-5591-6353-to-internet-standard-00.txt
2014-01-03
00 Sean Turner Placed on agenda for telechat - 2014-02-06