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

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