On 17 Aug 2016, at 11:56, joel jaeggli 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.
Hasn't that historically still been handled on a spec by spec basis?
_______________________________________________
jose mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/jose
