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 To: IETF-Announce Cc: RFC Editor , wjhns1@hardakers.net, j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de, ietfdbh@comcast.net, mundy@tislabs.com Subject: Protocol Action: … The following approval message was sent From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce Cc: RFC Editor , 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 To: IETF-Announce Cc: RFC Editor , wjhns1@hardakers.net, j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de, ietfdbh@comcast.net, mundy@tislabs.com Subject: Protocol Action: … The following approval message was sent From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce Cc: RFC Editor , 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 To: IETF-Announce Cc: RFC Editor , wjhns1@hardakers.net, j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de, ietfdbh@comcast.net, mundy@tislabs.com Subject: Protocol Action: … The following approval message was sent From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce Cc: RFC Editor , 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 To: IETF-Announce Cc: RFC Editor , wjhns1@hardakers.net, j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de, ietfdbh@comcast.net, mundy@tislabs.com Subject: Protocol Action: … The following approval message was sent From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce Cc: RFC Editor , 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: From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce Cc: isms@ietf.org Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org Sender: Subject: Last Call: Progressing RFCs 5343, 5590, … The following Last Call announcement was sent out: From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce Cc: isms@ietf.org Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org Sender: 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 |