Thanks for your useful review, Ben.  I believe that addresses all your 
comments and is ready to send to Kathleen.

                                Best wishes,
                                -- Mike

-----Original Message-----
From: Benjamin Kaduk <> 
Sent: Friday, February 2, 2018 2:25 PM
Subject: shepherd review of draft-ietf-ace-cbor-web-token-11

Hi all,

We're getting ready to send this to Kathleen for processing (hopefully to 
finish before her term as AD does!), but there are a few nits that should be 
fixed with a new rev before we actually push the button.

We currently have an informational reference to RFC 5226, which has since been 
replaced by RFC 8126; we should update our citation to the newer document with 
guidelines for writing IANA considerations.

In section 9.1 the second pargaraph says that the values are registerd on a 
"Specification Required" basis, but we have some ranges that are just "Expert 
Review".  So I think this text should say "Expert Review" instead (with some of 
the guidance to the experts being that certain subranges have additional 

We also note that the Experts should consider "whether it is useful only for a 
single application", and it's not entirely clear to me what the reuslt of that 
consideration should be.  Is only being useful for a single application 
supposed to be grounds for rejecting a registration?  (That doesn't seem 
necessarily true, for the Expert Review range.)  Or is that just a factor for 
whether "nice-looking"
names should be allowed for them?  Or something else?

In section 9.4, we attempt to register a value from the CBOR Tag registry; 
however, the template in RFC 7049 includes a "description of semantics" field, 
and not the "reference" field that we provide.

Finally, in the acknowledgments, we can ask the RFC Editor to use the non-ASCII 
"Gőran" if he so desires.  (Last I heard the tooling isn't there to use 
non-ASCII for internet drafts yet, though.)

Authors, will you be able to prepare a new version with these changes?


Ace mailing list

Reply via email to