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

[Jim Schaad <[e-mail]>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Alexey Melnikov [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: Sunday, March 4, 2018 1:01 PM
> To: Jim Schaad <[e-mail]>; The IESG <[e-mail]>
> Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail];
> [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: Alexey Melnikov's No Objection on draft-ietf-ace-cbor-web-
> token-12: (with COMMENT)
> 
> 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.

Interesting.  The text that IANA and I finally agreed to for the COSE Algorithm registry is "Standards Action With Expert Review".

That would make sure that it cannot bypass the Expert Review.

Jim

> 
> >  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.
> >
> >