Thanks, Rob We where actually wondering about the differnt datatracker status unless Alvaro told me how to find the reason in the history:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-anima-jws-voucher/history/ Thanks for holding the document, because this is what we originally asked you to do. BUT: We discussed this during our weekly BRSKI meetings, and the co-authors, shepherd and chairs feel very safe, that the document will not rn the risk to incur technical changes from other documents, such as rfc8366bis. Hence we felt that it would be great to show progress by running this document through IETF/IESG review, even if it then may hang a while in RFC editor queue. So, if you still have cycles for a small document like this to review, please go ahead! Cheers Toerless P.S.: How about a silly fun argument: Making documents wait in RFC editor queue (cluster) does have the benefit that i at least can remember the RFC numbers afterwards much more easity ;-)) On Fri, Jan 26, 2024 at 10:59:02AM +0000, Rob Wilton (rwilton) wrote: > Hi Anima chairs & authors of draft-ietf-anima-rfc8366bis, > > I wanted to check the WG status of this document. > draft-ietf-anima-jws-voucher-09 has been put on the publication requested > queue but seems to have a fairly strong dependency on > draft-ietf-anima-rfc8366bis, and hence I am wondering whether it doesn’t make > more sense to wait for draft-ietf-anima-rfc8366bis to also be in the Pub Req > queue before progressing them both together? > > Regards, > Rob > > > _______________________________________________ > Anima mailing list > Anima@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima _______________________________________________ Anima mailing list Anima@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima
