Thank you, Joel! On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 12:56 PM, joel jaeggli <[email protected]> wrote: > On 8/17/16 9:39 AM, Kathleen Moriarty wrote: >> On Tue, Aug 16, 2016 at 11:46 PM, Ben Campbell <[email protected]> wrote: >>> On 16 Aug 2016, at 21:43, Jim Schaad wrote: >>> >>>> I don't know when it needs to be done, but the other down reference in the >>>> document is also an algorithm document which I hope will get into the >>>> registry as well when it is published. >>> >>> I agree . I didn't call that out because that one _was_ mentioned in the >>> last call announcement. >> Sorry to chime in late. I thought this was covered in the shepherd >> report, but didn't realize there were 2 downrefs. What do I need to >> do at this point? We don't need to do another last call anymore, >> right? Sorry I am not remembering the new procedure. > If you belive that the downrefs to a particular document are accepted by > the community you waive them and do nothing. > > Once a specific down reference to a particular document has been > accepted by the community (e.g., has been mentioned in several Last > Calls), an Area Director may waive subsequent notices in the Last > Call of down references to it. This should only occur when the same > document (and version) are being referenced and when the AD believes > that the document's use is an accepted part of the community's > understanding of the relevant technical area. For example, the use > of MD5 [RFC1321 <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1321>] and HMAC [RFC2104 > <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2104>] is well known among > cryptographers. > > normative downrefs to external crypto specifications documented in > informational RFCs are a normal and accepted part of the process. > > >> >> Thanks, >> Kathleen >> >> >>> Thanks, >>> >>> Ben. >>> >>> >>>> Jim >>>> >>>> >>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>> From: Ben Campbell [mailto:[email protected]] >>>>> Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2016 7:16 PM >>>>> To: The IESG <[email protected]> >>>>> Cc: [email protected]; Jim Schaad >>>>> <[email protected]>; >>>>> [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] >>>>> Subject: Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-ietf-jose-cfrg-curves-05: >>>>> (with >>>>> COMMENT) >>>>> >>>>> Ben Campbell has entered the following ballot position for >>>>> draft-ietf-jose-cfrg-curves-05: No Objection >>>>> >>>>> 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-cfrg-curves/ >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>> COMMENT: >>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>> >>>>> I note that the reference to RFC7748 is a normative downref that does not >>>>> appear to be mentioned in the last call announcement. It’s not in the >>>>> downref >>>>> registry, but since it's an algorithm spec, it probably should be. I >>>>> don't suggest >>>>> any particular course of action; I merely bring it up in case people >>>>> hadn't already >>>>> noticed. >>>>> >> >> >
-- Best regards, Kathleen _______________________________________________ jose mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/jose
