Return-Path: X-Original-To: ace@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ace@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 372AD126BF6; Sun, 4 Mar 2018 11:39:37 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.911 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.911 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id OT5pfFvh4x4V; Sun, 4 Mar 2018 11:39:35 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail2.augustcellars.com (augustcellars.com [50.45.239.150]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 086DB1242F7; Sun, 4 Mar 2018 11:39:34 -0800 (PST) Received: from Jude (73.180.8.170) by mail2.augustcellars.com (192.168.0.56) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1347.2; Sun, 4 Mar 2018 11:37:40 -0800 From: Jim Schaad To: 'Alexey Melnikov' , 'The IESG' CC: , , , References: <152019111919.11926.18305687218435545827.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> In-Reply-To: <152019111919.11926.18305687218435545827.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Sun, 4 Mar 2018 11:39:24 -0800 Message-ID: <01e001d3b3f0$821e1990$865a4cb0$@augustcellars.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 16.0 Content-Language: en-us Thread-Index: AQLqOyXn1wuU65EJp2tE6F2Drxdm6KGTaguw X-Originating-IP: [73.180.8.170] Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Ace] Alexey Melnikov's No Objection on draft-ietf-ace-cbor-web-token-12: (with COMMENT) X-BeenThere: ace@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 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: Sun, 04 Mar 2018 19:39:37 -0000 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. 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:aamelnikov@fastmail.fm] > Sent: Sunday, March 4, 2018 11:19 AM > To: The IESG > Cc: draft-ietf-ace-cbor-web-token@ietf.org; ace-chairs@ietf.org; > kaduk@mit.edu; ace@ietf.org > Subject: Alexey Melnikov's No Objection on = draft-ietf-ace-cbor-web-token- > 12: (with COMMENT) >=20 > Alexey Melnikov has entered the following ballot position for > draft-ietf-ace-cbor-web-token-12: No Objection >=20 > 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.) >=20 >=20 > Please refer to = https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html > for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. >=20 >=20 > The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ace-cbor-web-token/ >=20 >=20 >=20 > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > COMMENT: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >=20 > 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.