Thanks, Mike! I'll check through this and send along the approval if everything looks good.
Best regards, Kathleen On Wed, Dec 23, 2015 at 11:09 AM, Mike Jones <[email protected]> wrote: > Draft -09 makes "crit" required with "b64" per the DISCUSS outcome and > addresses Stephen's editorial comments using the wording previously agreed > to. I believe that this version is ready for the RFC Editor. > > -- Mike > > -----Original Message----- > From: Stephen Farrell [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Tuesday, December 22, 2015 8:17 AM > To: The IESG <[email protected]> > Cc: [email protected]; Mike Jones > <[email protected]>; Jim Schaad <[email protected]>; > [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] > Subject: Stephen Farrell's Yes on > draft-ietf-jose-jws-signing-input-options-08: (with COMMENT) > > Stephen Farrell has entered the following ballot position for > draft-ietf-jose-jws-signing-input-options-08: Yes > > 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-jose-jws-signing-input-options/ > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > COMMENT: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > Thanks for the discussion of "crit" which I think has resolved so I'm > clearing now. > > I didn't check the comments below. No need to respond about them unless you > really want to. > > > - abstract: the description of the update to 7519 is odd. It seems to be > saying "Here we define a thing. This specification updates 7519 to say you > must not use this thing." but prohibiting is an odd verb to use there. (Since > it wasn't previously there to be allowed or not.) > > - section 6: "It is intended that application profiles specify up front > whether" "intended" is very wishy washy and "up front" > makes no sense at all. > > > _______________________________________________ > jose mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/jose -- Best regards, Kathleen _______________________________________________ jose mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/jose
