New Draft on its way

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

I'm going to be submitting bis21 shortly. This has the
following  
changes in it:

* Working author email address for Rodney Thayer.

* Additional notes from IANA comments, as well as some
reworking.  
Reserved signature subpacket types are explicitly marked
reserved,  
there are notes in section 9 that make things more clear,
and  
sections 10.4 through 10.6 have been moved to the end of
section 13  
because they are not IANA considerations per se, but
considerations  
that future work should pay attention to. I also changed
"upwards- 
compatible" to "backwards-compatible" in the
meta-considerations  
section, because that seems better to me.

I apologize about confusion about the last couple drafts. I
was  
accidentally omitted from the email from IANA. About the
time that  
they sent it, I sent out bis20, which had corrections from
other IETF  
Last Call comments. The coincidence in timing meant that
many people  
thought I was strangely not including IANA comments. I was
confused  
about why people were confused. I think we're all no longer
confused,  
and I think that this is a wrap. My fingers are crossed.

	Jon


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP Universal 2.6.0
Charset: US-ASCII

wj8DBQFGGtT3sTedWZOD3gYRAlZSAKC9sVJnzMGxekIO1+a62z/810fRwQCg
sjmf
vSNpf3d4p4GHbcQ2kPy49j8=
=1Wz2
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Jon,

Can you please hold off on submitting the new draft for
now?
We should be on the next IESG telechat with -20, and I
wouldn't
want to derail it.  Now, if Sam says it's okay to submit
-21
then let's go ahead, but otherwise we should just hold onto
it
and then we can feed the IESG comments into a new draft and
either
send the diffs or a new document as necessary.

Thanks,

-derek

Quoting Jon Callas <joncallas.org>:

>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> I'm going to be submitting bis21 shortly. This has the
following
> changes in it:
>
> * Working author email address for Rodney Thayer.
>
> * Additional notes from IANA comments, as well as some
reworking.
> Reserved signature subpacket types are explicitly
marked reserved,
> there are notes in section 9 that make things more
clear, and
> sections 10.4 through 10.6 have been moved to the end
of section 13
> because they are not IANA considerations per se, but
considerations
> that future work should pay attention to. I also
changed "upwards-
> compatible" to "backwards-compatible" in
the meta-considerations
> section, because that seems better to me.
>
> I apologize about confusion about the last couple
drafts. I was
> accidentally omitted from the email from IANA. About
the time that
> they sent it, I sent out bis20, which had corrections
from other IETF
> Last Call comments. The coincidence in timing meant
that many people
> thought I was strangely not including IANA comments. I
was confused
> about why people were confused. I think we're all no
longer confused,
> and I think that this is a wrap. My fingers are
crossed.
>
> 	Jon
>
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: PGP Universal 2.6.0
> Charset: US-ASCII
>
>
wj8DBQFGGtT3sTedWZOD3gYRAlZSAKC9sVJnzMGxekIO1+a62z/810fRwQCg
sjmf
> vSNpf3d4p4GHbcQ2kPy49j8=
> =1Wz2
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
>



-- 
       Derek Atkins, SB '93 MIT EE, SM '95 MIT Media
Laboratory
       Member, MIT Student Information Processing Board 
(SIPB)
       URL: http://web.mit.edu/warlor
d/    PP-ASEL-IA     N1NWH
       warlordMIT.EDU                        PGP key
available

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1


On Apr 9, 2007, at 6:20 PM, Derek Atkins wrote:

>
> Jon,
>
> Can you please hold off on submitting the new draft for
now?
> We should be on the next IESG telechat with -20, and I
wouldn't
> want to derail it.  Now, if Sam says it's okay to
submit -21
> then let's go ahead, but otherwise we should just hold
onto it
> and then we can feed the IESG comments into a new draft
and either
> send the diffs or a new document as necessary.
>

Sorry, too late. I can ask the ID desk to hold it, but it's
in.

	Jon


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP Universal 2.6.0
Charset: US-ASCII

wj8DBQFGGzDusTedWZOD3gYRAs30AJ97bsKuICjGGliBA8Ebo/CqFTl+OQCf
dm/P
8YVaaf4ghvTHpzQJ/8a1JHA=
=hJHn
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Jon Callas <joncallas.org> writes:

> On Apr 9, 2007, at 6:20 PM, Derek Atkins wrote:
>
>>
>> Jon,
>>
>> Can you please hold off on submitting the new draft
for now?
>> We should be on the next IESG telechat with -20,
and I wouldn't
>> want to derail it.  Now, if Sam says it's okay to
submit -21
>> then let's go ahead, but otherwise we should just
hold onto it
>> and then we can feed the IESG comments into a new
draft and either
>> send the diffs or a new document as necessary.
>>
>
> Sorry, too late. I can ask the ID desk to hold it, but
it's in.

Well, we'll see what Sam has to say.  PGP isn't on the
agenda
for the 4/19 meeting, yet, so reviewing -21 might be okay. 
But
it's up to Sam.

Sam?

> 	Jon

-derek

-- 
       Derek Atkins, SB '93 MIT EE, SM '95 MIT Media
Laboratory
       Member, MIT Student Information Processing Board 
(SIPB)
       URL: http://web.mit.edu/warlor
d/    PP-ASEL-IA     N1NWH
       warlordMIT.EDU                        PGP key
available

Hi.  Sending the new draft was fine in this instance.  I'm
sorry there
are so many picky and confusing rules about when it's OK and
when it
is not.  Basically the best way is to coordinate with the AD
after
publication request.

I briefly reviewed the diffs in 20 before pulling it from
the agenda.
The reason I pulled it is that it looked like references
required to
implement the spec were moved from normative to informative
(presumably in response to last call/genart comments).  I
suspect that
this was wrong and need to go back and confirm what is going
on.  I
don't think I will get to this today; I'm trying for
tomorrow.

--Sam