To:
<ietf-provreg@cafax.se>
Cc:
"Alexey Melnikov" <alexey.melnikov@isode.com>
From:
"Hollenbeck, Scott" <shollenbeck@verisign.com>
Date:
Fri, 17 Jul 2009 12:37:07 -0400
Content-class:
urn:content-classes:message
Sender:
owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se
Thread-Index:
AcoG/NMYENK5zX8FRJCPvh1cxKwEEA==
Thread-Topic:
4930bis-4934bis Status After IESG Review
Subject:
[ietf-provreg] 4930bis-4934bis Status After IESG Review
Yesterday the IESG reviewed the 4930bis - 4934bis documents for progression to Standard status. The good news is that 4930-4933bis were approved. The not-quite-as-good news is that 4934bis wasn't approved because the IESG wants me to update the implementation report I submitted when the documents were being considered for Draft standard status. Here's the old report: http://www.ietf.org/IESG/Implementations/RFCs3730-3734_implem.txt There were two specific requests: Add more info describing the current state of implementation. I'll do that, using this note as a guide: http://www.cafax.se/ietf-provreg/maillist/2008-12/msg00019.html I was also asked to add a row to the 3734/4934 section to describe "TLS server certificate verification". This is a client-side check to ensure that clients are confirming the identity of the server as described in section 9 of 4934bis. So, I need some help from the folks that submitted client-side info for the original report (Dot Registrar and Key Systems). Please speak up if you're still here. The question: are you receiving server identification information in the server certificate and are you taking steps to ensure that the given identity is what you expect it to be? If I can't find these two guys I'm going to need to work with one or two client implementers to redo the client columns in the report. Please let me know if you're willing to help with that. -Scott- -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- List run by majordomo software. For (Un-)subscription and similar details send "help" to ietf-provreg-request@cafax.se