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

[Mirja Kühlewind via Datatracker <[e-mail]>]

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).