Hi Mike, > On 16 Mar 2018, at 10:04, Mike Jones <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi Alexey, > > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ace-cbor-web-token-14 should address > your comments. Changes motivated by your comments were: > - Added the text "IANA must only accept registry updates from the Designated > Experts and should direct all requests for registration to the review mailing > list" from RFC 7519, as suggested by Amanda Baber of IANA, which is also > intended to address Alexey Melnikov's comment.
Works for me, thank you! > Thanks again, > -- Mike > > -----Original Message----- > From: Jim Schaad <[email protected]> > Sent: Sunday, March 4, 2018 1:12 PM > To: 'Alexey Melnikov' <[email protected]>; 'The IESG' <[email protected]> > Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; > [email protected]; [email protected] > Subject: RE: Alexey Melnikov's No Objection on > draft-ietf-ace-cbor-web-token-12: (with COMMENT) > > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Alexey Melnikov [mailto:[email protected]] >> Sent: Sunday, March 4, 2018 1:01 PM >> To: Jim Schaad <[email protected]>; The IESG <[email protected]> >> Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; >> [email protected]; [email protected] >> Subject: Re: Alexey Melnikov's No Objection on >> draft-ietf-ace-cbor-web- >> token-12: (with COMMENT) >> >>> On Sun, Mar 4, 2018, at 7:39 PM, Jim Schaad wrote: >>> IANA does ask for the expert review as part of the processing it >>> does even for standards track documents. This is because, in part, >>> they are responsible for doing the final number assignment. That is >>> which number in the range is actually used. The interesting >>> question would be what happens if the IESG and the DEs disagree about such >>> things. >> >> This is exactly why I am asking about this. It might also possible to >> game the system to ask IESG approval of a Proposed Standard that >> bypasses Expert Review. > > Interesting. The text that IANA and I finally agreed to for the COSE > Algorithm registry is "Standards Action With Expert Review". > > That would make sure that it cannot bypass the Expert Review. > > Jim > >> >>> I would >>> expect that this would result in a long discussion with some type of >>> final agreement between them. >>> >>> Jim >>> >>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: Alexey Melnikov [mailto:[email protected]] >>>> Sent: Sunday, March 4, 2018 11:19 AM >>>> To: The IESG <[email protected]> >>>> Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; >>>> [email protected]; [email protected] >>>> Subject: Alexey Melnikov's No Objection on >>>> draft-ietf-ace-cbor-web-token- >>>> 12: (with COMMENT) >>>> >>>> Alexey Melnikov has entered the following ballot position for >>>> draft-ietf-ace-cbor-web-token-12: No Objection >>>> >>>> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to >>>> all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to >>>> cut this introductory paragraph, however.) >>>> >>>> >>>> Please refer to >>>> https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html >>>> for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. >>>> >>>> >>>> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: >>>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ace-cbor-web-token/ >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>> -- >>>> -- >>>> COMMENT: >>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>> -- >>>> -- >>>> >>>> Just to double check: a CWT claim registration from a Proposed >>>> Standard still needs to be submitted to the review mailing list, >>>> but it is not really subject to Expert Review, correct? You might >>>> want to make >> it clearer. >>> >>> > _______________________________________________ Ace mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ace
