On Dec 2, 2014, at 12:20 PM, Barry Leiba <barryleiba(_at_)computer(_dot_)org>
wrote:
When you suggest saying more, are you suggesting saying more in the
document?
I mostly meant the writeup - I expect there will be IESG folks with the same
questions I had.
I can do that, sure.
This document updates:
...
c) IEEE-ISTO PWG IPP Version 2.0 Second Edition [PWG5100.12], by
extending section 4 'IPP Standards' and section 10 'Security
Considerations'.
This RFC-to-be is updating an IEEE-ISTO PWG document, and that seems
exceptional enough to warrant mention about how the organizations
are coordinating that update.
I'd think that's for PWG to address on their side, no? If they accept
that they can have an IETF RFC formally updating one of their
documents, that's their process, not ours, no?
And FWIW, the sections in question currently reference RFC 3510 along with the
various TLS RFCs. At some point in the next year we will be updating IPP/2.0
to full IEEE standard, at which point the references in those sections will be
updated accordingly.
_________________________________________________________
Michael Sweet, Senior Printing System Engineer, PWG Chair
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature