Subject: Last Call: <draft-pechanec-pkcs11uri-16.txt> (The PKCS#11 URI Scheme) to Proposed Standard: new draft 18

From: Jan Pechanec <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2015 13:38:16 -0800 (PST)

hi, the new draft draft-pechanec-pkcs11uri-18.txt addresses 
comments on the use of UTF-8 in labels and names.  The issue is that 
the PKCS#11 specification does not comment on normalization of the 
UTF-8 encoded Unicode characters, it just says "UTF-8".  So, it is 
RECOMMENDed now in draft 18 to use US-ASCII only but enough 
information is provided as to what SHOULD be done if characters 
outside of US-ASCII need to be used.

	link to a diff from the previous draft version 17 is as 
follows:

https://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-pechanec-pkcs11uri-18.txt

	best regards, Jan.

-- 
Jan Pechanec <[email-masked]>

---

From: Jan Pechanec <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2015 11:39:54 -0800 (PST)

On Mon, 12 Jan 2015, Jan Pechanec wrote:

	hello, a new draft was filed, draft-pechanec-pkcs11uri-19.txt, 
which addresses IANA comments on the registration template.  Changes 
from the previous version 18 are as follows:

https://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-pechanec-pkcs11uri-19.txt

	regards, Jan.

---

From: Stephen Farrell <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2015 16:04:18 +0000

Hi all,

Thanks for the extensive and useful last call comments on this
draft, I think they resulted in substantial improvements.

My reading of the last call is that we do have rough consensus
to go ahead with -19 and so I'll shortly put it on the Feb 5th
IESG telechat agenda.

However, I've not done a detailed re-read of all 88 mails I see
on [email-masked] [1] (and I see 158 locally but that includes
dups and saag messages too), so please do feel free to let me
know if an issue you raised was not addressed sufficiently
well. (Doing that initially offlist might be best in case it's
just checking something, and so we don't spin up another i18n
mega-thread unless we really need one:-)

If something significant comes up in the next week, I'll take
this back of the IESG telechat agenda and we can extend/re-do
the IETF LC starting with -19. But I think we're done for now
and, again, thanks for the comments that made this a good bit
better.

Cheers,
S.

PS: The diff from the start to the end of IETF LC is at [2]
and yes, there are a couple of typos, but the RFC editor will
catch those, or I'll ask the authors to fix 'em if IESG eval
results in other changes.

[1] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/search/?q=pechanec&f_list=ietf
[2]
https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url1=draft-pechanec-pkcs11uri-16&difftype=--html&submit=Go!&url2=draft-pechanec-pkcs11uri-19