#83: Section 7. IANA Considerations Changes (by [email protected]):
* status: new => closed * resolution: => fixed Old description: > A. What happens if, within the review period, the registration has no > comments? > > B. In this section - there is an argument about the use of must vs MUST > in 2119 language. Some people think this is a protocol requirement even > if it is lower case. > > C. Is there any requirement to deal with conflicts of interest in the > expert reviewer list? For example if OpenID wants to register a new > parameter, should it be required that a non OpenID person do the review? New description: A. What happens if, within the review period, the registration has no comments? * FIXED B. In this section - there is an argument about the use of must vs MUST in 2119 language. Some people think this is a protocol requirement even if it is lower case. * FIXED C. Is there any requirement to deal with conflicts of interest in the expert reviewer list? For example if OpenID wants to register a new parameter, should it be required that a non OpenID person do the review? * FIXED -- -- -------------------------+------------------------------------------------- Reporter: | Owner: draft-ietf-jose-json-web- [email protected] | [email protected] Type: defect | Status: closed Priority: major | Milestone: Component: json-web- | Version: key | Resolution: fixed Severity: - | Keywords: | -------------------------+------------------------------------------------- Ticket URL: <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/jose/trac/ticket/83#comment:1> jose <http://tools.ietf.org/jose/> _______________________________________________ jose mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/jose
