Re: Last Call: <draft-santesson-auth-context-extension-09.txt> (Authentication Context Certificate Extension) to Proposed Standard

[Kathleen Moriarty <[e-mail]>]

On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 10:41 AM, Scott Bradner <[e-mail]> wrote:
> process-wise I think you are fine as long as it was last-called for the
> status you now intend

Great, that what I was thinking, but wanted to make this error known
to be on the safe side.

Thanks,
Kathleen
>
> the general issue is addressed in 2026
>
>    The IESG is not bound by the action recommended when the
>    specification was submitted.  For example, the IESG may decide to
>    consider the specification for publication in a different category
>    than that requested.  If the IESG determines this before the Last-
>    Call is issued then the Last-Call should reflect the IESG's view.
>    The IESG could also decide to change the publication category based
>    on the response to a Last-Call. If this decision would result in a
>    specification being published at a "higher" level than the original
>    Last-Call was for, a new Last-Call should be issued indicating the
>    IESG recommendation. In addition, the IESG may decide to recommend
>    the formation of a new Working Group in the case of significant
>    controversy in response to a Last-Call for specification not
>    originating from an IETF Working Group.
>
> any you are on the right side of that discussion
>
> Scott
>
> On Nov 17, 2015, at 10:34 AM, Kathleen Moriarty
> <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> The draft below was sent through last call as Proposed Standard, which
> was intended, but the document header was listed as informational.  If
> there is no issue changing the header and proceeding as proposed
> standard, we'll go ahead with that.  Please let me know if there is a
> problem and we'll put it through as informational, it was marked
> correctly everywhere else and did go through the 4 week last call
> process.
>
> Thank you,
> Kathleen
>
>
> Subject: Last Call: <draft-santesson-auth-context-extension-09.txt>
> (Authentication Context Certificate Extension) to Proposed Standard
> Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2015 15:08:19 -0700
> From: The IESG <[e-mail]>
> Reply-To: [e-mail]
> To: IETF-Announce <[e-mail]>
>
>
> The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider
> the following document:
> - 'Authentication Context Certificate Extension'
>  <draft-santesson-auth-context-extension-09.txt> as Proposed Standard
>
> The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
> final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
> [e-mail] mailing lists by 2015-10-27. Exceptionally, comments may be
> sent to [e-mail] instead. In either case, please retain the
> beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.
>
> Abstract
>
>
>   This document defines an extension to certificates according to
>   [RFC5280]. The extension defined in this document holds data about
>   how the certificate subject was authenticated by the Certification
>   Authority that issued the certificate in which this extension appears
>
>   This document also defines one data structure for inclusion in this
>   Extension. The data structure is designed to hold information when
>   the subject is authenticated using a SAML assertion [SAML].
>
>
>
>
> The file can be obtained via
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-santesson-auth-context-extension/
>
> IESG discussion can be tracked via
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-santesson-auth-context-extension/ballot/
>
>
> No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.
>
> Note: The editorial comments in the shepherd report have been addressed.
> These will be removed/updated in a future version of the shepherd
> report, but I didn't want to hold up processing of this draft any further.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Best regards,
> Kathleen
>
>



-- 

Best regards,
Kathleen