Indeed, it will get a new IETF last call, and then come back on the IESG agenda.
b On Tue, Dec 15, 2020 at 3:42 AM Magnus Westerlund <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi, > > It sounds good that you are making progress. > > Barry, do you plan to make this an returing item to the IESG telechat when it > is > ready due to its elevated status? > > Cheers > > Magnus > > On Sun, 2020-12-13 at 23:12 +0100, Ivaylo Petrov wrote: > > Hello Magnus, > > > > Thank you for your review and apologies for the delay! I have changed the > > document status as you requested. The change could be seen in commitdf4c50d > > . > > I have some technical difficulties and after they are resolved, I will > > upload > > a new version of the draft. After that I will work with Barry Leiba to have > > the new IETF last call. > > > > Best regards, > > Ivaylo > > > > > > On Thu, Oct 22, 2020 at 2:18 PM Magnus Westerlund via Datatracker < > > [email protected]> wrote: > > > Magnus Westerlund has entered the following ballot position for > > > draft-ietf-cose-x509-07: Discuss > > > > > > 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-cose-x509/ > > > > > > > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > DISCUSS: > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > I think the topic should be fairly easily to resolve one way or another. > > > However, even after having read the reply to Marin's comment I don't think > > > this > > > document is published with the right status. > > > > > > - The document defines new CBOR attributes, that is standard track work as > > > it > > > comes out as consensus document from a IETF WG. - It does not define or > > > document crypto algorithm just refer to existing ones. - The charter item > > > might > > > have been reasonable as informational if existing attributes could have > > > been > > > used. With the choice to define new attributes I think this has entered > > > standards track. - The status of the document I think will also affect the > > > value that IANA might assign to these COSE Header Parameters. > > > > > > If there are additional considerations I am happy to learn about them. > > > > > > Else, I would propose a change of status to proposed standard and redo the > > > IETF > > > last call. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ COSE mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cose
