Re: [http-auth] WGLC on the MutualAuth drafts

The situation is the same with the mutual document.
If any changes are required to the httpauth-extension.
the same changes will be to the auth-mutual.

-- 
Yutaka OIWA, Ph.D.       Leader, Cyber Physical Architecture Research Group
                                  Information Technology Research Institute
    National Institute of Advanced Industrial Science and Technology (AIST)
                      Mail addresses: <y.oiwa@aist.go.jp>, <yutaka@oiwa.jp>
OpenPGP: id[440546B5] fp[7C9F 723A 7559 3246 229D  3139 8677 9BD2 4405 46B5]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Yoav Nir [mailto:ynir.ietf@gmail.com]
> Sent: Thursday, July 7, 2016 11:35 PM
> To: 大岩寛 <y.oiwa@aist.go.jp>
> Cc: httpauth mailing list <http-auth@ietf.org>
> Subject: Re: [http-auth] WGLC on the MutualAuth drafts
> 
> Hi.
> 
> Definitely submit the revised draft. At the conclusion of this thread, we can
> decide whether to proceed with RFC 5987, wait for 5987bis with the document
> in the working group, or proceed with the document and have it wait for the
> 5987bis in the RFC editor’s queue.
> 
> Just one question: This thread has been about the -extension document. The base
> mutual document also references RFC 5987. Will that need any updates (except
> changing the RFC number in the reference), or is that document fine the way
> it is?
> 
> Thanks
> 
> Yoav
> 
> > On 7 Jul 2016, at 5:23 PM, 大岩寛 <y.oiwa@aist.go.jp> wrote:
> >
> > Dear Yoav,
> >
> > I have not yet have enough information to discover how we should do
> > with RFC5987bis, including three options:
> > 1) Keep referring to current RFC5987 until next possible revision,
> > 2) Wait for bis, or follow it in IETF LC, or unlikely (hopefully,)
> > 3) Rethink of the WG decision on RFC5987 and go back to WG discussion.
> > However, nothing of above plans will prohibit me to submit the revised
> > drafts before the "submission lockout period".
> > So, I'll submit the revised drafts
> > with keeping references to RFC5987 as it is currently.
> > If we later decide to make change at this moment (with a few weeks
> > delay), let us consider it just as intermediate drafts, and I'll
> > re-submit the more-revised drafts just after the lockout period.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > --
> > Yutaka OIWA, Ph.D.       Leader, Cyber Physical Architecture Research Group
> >                                  Information Technology Research
> Institute
> >    National Institute of Advanced Industrial Science and Technology (AIST)
> >                      Mail addresses: <y.oiwa@aist.go.jp>,
> > <yutaka@oiwa.jp>
> > OpenPGP: id[440546B5] fp[7C9F 723A 7559 3246 229D  3139 8677 9BD2 4405
> > 46B5]
> >
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: http-auth [mailto:http-auth-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Yoav
> >> Nir
> >> Sent: Wednesday, July 6, 2016 4:15 AM
> >> To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
> >> Cc: httpauth mailing list <http-auth@ietf.org>
> >> Subject: Re: [http-auth] WGLC on the MutualAuth drafts
> >>
> >>
> >>> On 5 Jul 2016, at 6:17 PM, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> On 2016-07-05 17:09, Yoav Nir wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> On 5 Jul 2016, at 2:39 PM, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On 2016-07-05 13:26, Yoav Nir wrote:
> >>>>>> I’m not sure I follow what kind of coordination is needed here.
> >>>>>> IMO the
> >> -extension document is ready to go to IETF LC (after the authors make
> >> the necessary changes you’ve already discussed). I think it’s going
> >> to be past the IESG before 5987bis is ready. Do you see any need to
> >> make this document depend on 5987bis instead of 5987? Will making
> >> this change require any changes to the ABNF in the document?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Yes, IMHO it would require changes.
> >>>>
> >>>> OK. Any chance you and the authors can get the changes done before
> >>>> Friday’s
> >> deadline?
> >>>
> >>> Very unlikely on my side.
> >>
> >> So what kind of changes are we talking about?  Just the ABNF block,
> >> or a bunch of surrounding text?
> >>
> >> The reason I’m asking is that I think if it’s just the ABNF we can
> >> progress the document with a note to the AD that the ABNF will need
> >> an update, and finish that during IETF last call. Otherwise we’re delaying
> by another 3-4 weeks.
> >> Of course, considering how long this has been in process 3-4 extra
> >> weeks are no big deal, but why procrastinate if we don’t have to?
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >>
> >> Yoav
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> http-auth mailing list
> >> http-auth@ietf.org
> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/http-auth