Re: [Ace] Alexey Melnikov's No Objection on draft-ietf-ace-cbor-web-token-12: (with COMMENT)

[Alexey Melnikov <[e-mail]>]

On Sun, Mar 4, 2018, at 7:39 PM, Jim Schaad wrote:
> IANA does ask for the expert review as part of the processing it does 
> even for standards track documents.  This is because, in part, they are 
> responsible for doing the final number assignment.  That is which number 
> in the range is actually used.  The interesting question would be what 
> happens if the IESG and the DEs disagree about such things.

This is exactly why I am asking about this. It might also possible to game the system to ask IESG approval of a Proposed Standard that bypasses Expert Review.

>  I would 
> expect that this would result in a long discussion with some type of 
> final agreement between them.
> 
> Jim
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Alexey Melnikov [mailto:[e-mail]]
> > Sent: Sunday, March 4, 2018 11:19 AM
> > To: The IESG <[e-mail]>
> > Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail];
> > [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> > Subject: Alexey Melnikov's No Objection on draft-ietf-ace-cbor-web-token-
> > 12: (with COMMENT)
> > 
> > Alexey Melnikov has entered the following ballot position for
> > draft-ietf-ace-cbor-web-token-12: 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-ace-cbor-web-token/
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > COMMENT:
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > 
> > Just to double check: a CWT claim registration from a Proposed Standard still
> > needs to be submitted to the review mailing list, but it is not really subject to
> > Expert Review, correct? You might want to make it clearer.
> 
>