[ietf-provreg] RE: Standards Track Advancement Request for EPP RFCs

["Hollenbeck, Scott" <shollenbeck@verisign.com>]

(trimming the recipients a bit)

It's been 3 months since I last heard from anyone who had any concerns
with moving forward, so I'm going to get moving.  I have copies of the
XML source files for the current RFCs to use as a basis for new I-Ds.  I
intend to update references in RFCs 4930-4934 as needed.  I will add
text to 4934 to better describe the TLS usage profile as noted by Chris.

-Scott-

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Chris.Newman@Sun.COM [mailto:Chris.Newman@Sun.COM] 
> Sent: Tuesday, December 16, 2008 12:08 AM
> To: Hollenbeck, Scott; lisa@osafoundation.org
> Cc: ietf-provreg@cafax.se; iesg@ietf.org
> Subject: RE: Standards Track Advancement Request for EPP RFCs
> 
> Two questions I missed:
> 
> --On October 17, 2008 8:28:31 -0400 "Hollenbeck, Scott" 
> <shollenbeck@verisign.com> wrote:
> > 4291: is its status a show-stopper for advancement?  I'd 
> like to have 
> > that question answered before I invest a lot of time in making any 
> > document updates to address the TLS topics you noted.
> 
> This is a case for RFC 3967, IMHO.  While I can't predict how 
> the rest of the IETF will behave on this point, the only 
> alternative would be to rip
> IPv6 support out of the base spec into a separate extension 
> that doesn't advance on the standards track.  I would find it 
> quite surprising if the IETF/IESG choose that alternative to RFC 3967.
> 
> > Can you point me to another specification that includes a TLS usage 
> > profile that addresses the features you described?  I'd 
> like to see an 
> > example that has recently passed muster with the IESG.
> 
> The most recent is:
>   <http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-syslog-transport-tls>
> 
> 		- Chris
> 
>