Re: [Ace] Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on draft-ietf-ace-cwt-proof-of-possession-09: (with COMMENT)

Barry Leiba <> Fri, 25 October 2019 16:31 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id EAA1D1208EA; Fri, 25 Oct 2019 09:31:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.4
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.4 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.249, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.25, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id tsPjQaIGW9Az; Fri, 25 Oct 2019 09:31:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 92C411201C6; Fri, 25 Oct 2019 09:31:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id o16so2360138ilq.9; Fri, 25 Oct 2019 09:31:54 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=WATzs06QtEKufJr+P6EYED5tii+1ergROrh5I2gHi8U=; b=RfcZ7Ow6R1m00DSvswY8ozCX/3Gx3++aBjB6suqrIWHliU/YayhBToK4+k37sxbYCK 4XtojCa7p7NGbMqLB+GtSxkuioACJ0vmhgB1z+OeP7+Y6nsVZmwg5KLKyD+W35mmvXUi Q/8a9ISQjURAAIhyFGFdpPFf/OsbVE16cWa4Z1Jo/blq/Bto5dtC0+Pp4qxzunlh61fG 78YI6KARV+iv67X/18hSeZdofz0i4kKLcOse1DFBQvC2rt1vSC3Kx44Jr7WlVpRs4fX5 oGlLC6ec68e3v4JPkrDC/Vy2eCom8FXYh5Ia0GK5ueZ4WVl2/Rfe17V414pwvEs8+Cyu tgwA==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAUurpgVFmUm9iovD7tBeuGb/VtSrQ3DYYgs3UFFMSU2VY9FmaBN JAaxo/gewQUk9BMmhB7oVbPa36w9UNWhHAFCn2M=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqzIU7Hdg1C2dIy9M5K5SiSdHl75B6u1UX0+okFVWV/F8MlKJDB+y0lfjQqhXNXarUJLU8wToVrcHnd1gzcSmKI=
X-Received: by 2002:a92:8408:: with SMTP id l8mr5325443ild.107.1572021113371; Fri, 25 Oct 2019 09:31:53 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
From: Barry Leiba <>
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2019 12:31:42 -0400
Message-ID: <>
To: =?UTF-8?Q?Mirja_K=C3=BChlewind?= <>
Cc: The IESG <>,, "Roman D. Danyliw" <>,,
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Ace] =?utf-8?q?Mirja_K=C3=BChlewind=27s_No_Objection_on_draft-i?= =?utf-8?q?etf-ace-cwt-proof-of-possession-09=3A_=28with_COMMENT=29?=
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Authentication and Authorization for Constrained Environments \(ace\)" <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2019 16:31:56 -0000

Yeh, it's very common for authors to try to tell IANA how to handle
registrations, and I often push back on that as inappropriate.  There
are certainly special conditions that IANA should be told about, but
this is standard work-flow management stuff that ought to be left to
IANA.  I do think it should be changed before this is published,
probably just removing that last sentence.


On Fri, Oct 25, 2019 at 12:01 PM Mirja Kühlewind via Datatracker
<>; wrote:
> Mirja Kühlewind has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-ace-cwt-proof-of-possession-09: 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
> for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> I would like to discuss one point with the IESG, however, not raising my ballot
> to "discuss" as I believe we can conclude quickly and this is not a major
> problem anyway.
> So it seems to become more common to not only have expert review but also post
> a registration request on a public list and wait for a couple of weeks for
> comments. While I myself am uncertain if that is a good or bad practice (maybe
> also depends on the protocol), I would like to discuss this part in the IANA
> section:
>    Registration requests sent to the mailing list for review should use
>    an appropriate subject (e.g., "Request to Register CWT Confirmation
>    Method: example").  Registration requests that are undetermined for a
>    period longer than 21 days can be brought to the IESG's attention
>    (using the mailing list) for resolution.
> I would think that, no matter what, registration request should be directed at
> IANA (and they would then post or forward to a mailing list and/or experts; or
> alternatively the experts can post than on the mailing list). I guess IANA
> would need to provide feedback here on what they prefer. However, for raising
> problems, of course everybody can always bring any problem to the IESG, but I
> think the first point of contact should also be IANA here. And then if no
> resolution can be find quickly for whatever reason, I would think that it's
> rather IANA that will bring this to the IESG (than the requesters directly).