[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Mea Culpa and NEW SCVP 16 comments deadline



Folks,

As Trevor noted, I had established a deadline for comments on SCVP 16 during the last meeting. I think I promised to restate this on list, but apparently failed to do so. Since it was not in the minutes, it was not communicated to the list and it doesn't count. So, I am setting a new deadline:

Wednesday, December 15.

Yes, that is a very aggressive deadline, but everyone on the PKIX list should be aware by now that we need to finish SCVP. If you were interested in commenting, I assume that you have read the drafts already, and should be able to easily prepare your comments. (And if you didn't expect a deadline before, this thread should have clued you in!) It should not take a week to complete your review and submit comments.

So, my apologies: to the list for the oversight; and to the editors for extending the comment period.

Tim Polk

At 12:38 PM 12/6/2004 +0100, Peter Sylvester wrote:

Denis and Trevor, >
> Trevor,
>
> > The deadline communicated at the DC meeting for making comments on SCVP
> > 16 was Nov 30th which has now passed. I have had only three people send
> > me comments to date. SCVP 17 will be closing very shortly so this is the
> > last reminder.
>
> Thank for the remainder. I missed the initial announcement.
What announcement?
what I can read here is:

The minutes say (17 nov)

> SCVP (version 16) - Trevor Freeman (Microsoft)
        Lots of changes have been made from v15; many were editorial
> but also many substantive changes and some new features. Another rev
> of the document will be needed. We need to ensure that the ASN.1 is
> correct, once we agree on the functionality, and so we will compile
> it to verify. Presentation reviewed changes and new features
> (relative to v15). See slides for additional details.

The minutes had not been challenged by Trevor.

I cannot see any announcement on the list about that date. There
are "no presentation files and no minutes' available in the IETF
server.

According to my understanding of how IETF working groups
function, an announement during a meeting is non-existant
if not reflected in the mailing list message.

(It may be that someone filters the content of the imc server for me).

Peter