[Chair Hat] Thanks Sven. You're talking about removing the entire section IANA Considerations > Attestation Statement Formats.
I personally think that's right; in my opinion, this is creating maintenance work for IANA that does not really add any value. THAT SAID, this should be a WG decision especially since the current chair and authors weren't around for the full history of the document. SO, Sven / Ganesh, can you please start a new thread to [email protected] proposing that change, and give it half a week to see if anyone complains? On Wed, 26 Nov 2025 at 20:34, Amanda Baber via RT <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Sven, > > It could wait until you have other updates to make. Unless you'd like an > earlier review, the next time we'll see it will be at IETF Last Call or the > next time it's on a WG agenda at an IETF meeting, whichever comes first. > > thanks, > Amanda > > On Thu Nov 27 01:16:06 2025, [email protected] wrote: > > Ganesh and I agree that section 7.4 should be removed. Should we cut > > another draft to update? > > > > > > Sven Rajala > > > > International PKI Man of Mystery > > > > > > > > M: +1 540 687 0761 > > > > [email protected]<https://www.keyfactor.com/> > > > > > > > > From: Sven A Rajala <[email protected]> > > Date: Sunday, 2025 November 2 at 17:40 > > To: Mike Ounsworth <[email protected]>, [email protected] > > <[email protected]> > > Cc: [email protected] <draft-acme-device- > > [email protected]>, [email protected] <[email protected]> > > Subject: Re: [Acme] Re: [IANA #1435580] Early review: draft-acme- > > device-attest-07 (IETF 124) > > > > Thanks for reviewing Amanda. We should make some updates to publish an > > updated draft with the feedback from IANA. I will get in touch with > > Ganesh and we will work on this. > > > > Kindly, > > > > > > Sven Rajala > > > > International PKI Man of Mystery > > > > > > > > M: +1 540 687 0761 > > > > [email protected]<https://www.keyfactor.com/> > > > > > > > > From: Mike Ounsworth <[email protected]> > > Date: Monday, 2025 November 3 at 06:14 > > To: [email protected] <[email protected]> > > Cc: [email protected] <draft-acme-device- > > [email protected]>, [email protected] <[email protected]> > > Subject: [Acme] Re: [IANA #1435580] Early review: draft-acme-device- > > attest-07 (IETF 124) > > > > This Message Is From an External Sender > > This message came from outside your organization. > > Report Suspicious<https://us-phishalarm- > > ewt.proofpoint.com/EWT/v1/BjbSd3t9V7AnTp3tuV- > > 82YaK!_uQhDA8nmlmoNGcykNqTnyDv7eX8sDoXQ2f96qh2_IcHZpcbzJUB5LD5wjNj0CY- > > YGm0GSy1GtFOispbWcq5OwwwoR92RBDtGdRMOWilhxQ2jJBgkkb7jwE9B5cYptWu$> > > > > Thank you Amanda! > > > > @Authors, please consider this feedback from IANA to be WGLC feedback. > > > > On Thu, 30 Oct 2025 at 18:55, Amanda Baber via RT <iana- > > [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > Dear Authors (cc: acme WG), > > > > Before the IETF meeting, we check working group agendas for documents > > with IANA-related issues. We have notes about this document: > > > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-acme-device-attest- > > 07< > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft- > > acme-device-attest-07__;!!BjbSd3t9V7AnTp3tuV- > > 82YaK!y2Nwh_jGrkAz2Y_6bcqIESjlRfpE3ihUJXHY8AHMoCuZDIDuNKIbBqQ7R3I- > > xQeAhZWOOERpIFUBPEga7LsDr8mqsGGBAA$> > > > > Section 7.1: > > > > The title of Section 7.1 refers to Identifier Types, but the text of > > the section asks for Validation Methods. (The latter seems to be an > > error, as Section 7.2 consistently refers to Validation Methods.) > > > > Section 7.2: > > > > The ACME Validation Methods registry also has a field called “ACME”: > > https://www.iana.org/assignments/acme< > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.iana.org/assignments/acme__;!!BjbSd3t9V7AnTp3tuV- > > 82YaK!y2Nwh_jGrkAz2Y_6bcqIESjlRfpE3ihUJXHY8AHMoCuZDIDuNKIbBqQ7R3I- > > xQeAhZWOOERpIFUBPEga7LsDr8kOFDprJw$> > > > > Section 7.4: > > > > 1) The last sentence of Section 7.4 refers to “the registry > > established by [RFC8809],” but that document actually established two > > registries in the WebAuthn group. > > > > 2) It's possible that the IESG will question the statement in Section > > 7.4 that "Any additional processes established by the expert(s) after > > the publication of this document will be recorded on the registry web > > page at the discretion of the expert(s)." It might be appropriate to > > describe the type of process that's meant here (e.g., additions to the > > registration request submission methods described later in the > > section. Can the expert change details specified by the RFC?). > > > > 3) Section 7.4.1.1 establishes a URL for a new registry group, but it > > should also supply the name. Is it the name of the new registry, or > > should it use a broader name, like “Web Authentication (WebAuthn) for > > Certificate Request Protocols”? > > > > If you have any questions, just let us know. If you'd like to talk in > > person, you can find us next to the RFC Editor's table from Monday > > through Thursday. You can also request another review at any time by > > contacting us at [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>. > > > > For more information about IANA Considerations section requirements, > > please see > > > > https://www.iana.org/help/protocol- > > registration< > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.iana.org/help/protocol- > > registration__;!!BjbSd3t9V7AnTp3tuV- > > 82YaK!y2Nwh_jGrkAz2Y_6bcqIESjlRfpE3ihUJXHY8AHMoCuZDIDuNKIbBqQ7R3I- > > xQeAhZWOOERpIFUBPEga7LsDr8n3IPmsrA$> > > > > Best regards, > > > > Amanda Baber > > IANA > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Acme mailing list -- [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> > > To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]<mailto:acme- > > [email protected]> > >
_______________________________________________ Acme mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
