[Ace] Eric Rescorla's No Objection on draft-ietf-ace-cbor-web-token-13: (with COMMENT)

2018-03-07 Thread Eric Rescorla
Eric Rescorla has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-ace-cbor-web-token-13: 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

Re: [Ace] [Gen-art] Genart telechat review of draft-ietf-ace-cbor-web-token-12

2018-03-07 Thread Alissa Cooper
Dan, thanks for your review. Mike et al, thanks for your responses. I appreciate the novelty of the registration process here but I think the text as it currently stands is clear enough. I entered a No Objection ballot. Alissa > On Mar 5, 2018, at 7:44 PM, Mike Jones

Re: [Ace] Adam Roach's No Objection on draft-ietf-ace-cbor-web-token-13: (with COMMENT)

2018-03-07 Thread Mike Jones
Thanks, Ben and Adam. I've recoded a note to address the improvements below one the submission tool reopens. For what it's worth, I independently noticed the unintended overlap between the Standards Action and Specification Required number ranges in a conversation today with IANA. The point

Re: [Ace] Adam Roach's No Objection on draft-ietf-ace-cbor-web-token-13: (with COMMENT)

2018-03-07 Thread Adam Roach
On 3/7/18 11:47 PM, Mike Jones wrote: The point of including new CWT definitions for "StringOrURI" and "NumericDate" was so that we could use them directly. Prefixing them with "CWT" isn't necessary for the meaning to be clear in context. Given that the current formulation confused both

Re: [Ace] Adam Roach's No Objection on draft-ietf-ace-cbor-web-token-13: (with COMMENT)

2018-03-07 Thread Mike Jones
Fair enough. I'll work on alternate exposition for these types to avoid any potential confusion. Thanks again, -- Mike -Original Message- From: Adam Roach Sent: Wednesday, March 7, 2018 10:28 PM To: