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

[Barry Leiba <[e-mail]>]

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.

b

On Fri, Oct 25, 2019 at 12:01 PM Mirja Kühlewind via Datatracker
<[e-mail]> 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 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-cwt-proof-of-possession/
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> 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 [e-mail] 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).
>
>