Re: [jose] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-ietf-jose-cfrg-curves-05: (with COMMENT)

[Kathleen Moriarty <[e-mail]>]

Thank you, Joel!

On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 12:56 PM, joel jaeggli <[e-mail]> wrote:
> On 8/17/16 9:39 AM, Kathleen Moriarty wrote:
>> On Tue, Aug 16, 2016 at 11:46 PM, Ben Campbell <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>> On 16 Aug 2016, at 21:43, Jim Schaad wrote:
>>>
>>>> I don't know when it needs to be done, but the other down reference in the
>>>> document is also an algorithm document which I hope will get into the
>>>> registry as well when it is published.
>>>
>>> I agree . I didn't call that out because that one _was_ mentioned in the
>>> last call announcement.
>> Sorry to chime in late.  I thought this was covered in the shepherd
>> report, but didn't realize there were 2 downrefs.  What do I need to
>> do at this point?  We don't need to do another last call anymore,
>> right?  Sorry I am not remembering the new procedure.
> If you belive that the downrefs to a particular document are accepted by
> the community you waive them and do nothing.
>
>    Once a specific down reference to a particular document has been
>    accepted by the community (e.g., has been mentioned in several Last
>    Calls), an Area Director may waive subsequent notices in the Last
>    Call of down references to it.  This should only occur when the same
>    document (and version) are being referenced and when the AD believes
>    that the document's use is an accepted part of the community's
>    understanding of the relevant technical area.  For example, the use
>    of MD5 [RFC1321 <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1321>] and HMAC [RFC2104 <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2104>] is well known among
>    cryptographers.
>
> normative downrefs to external crypto specifications documented in informational RFCs are a normal and accepted part of the process.
>
>
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Kathleen
>>
>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> Ben.
>>>
>>>
>>>> Jim
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: Ben Campbell [mailto:[e-mail]]
>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2016 7:16 PM
>>>>> To: The IESG <[e-mail]>
>>>>> Cc: [e-mail]; Jim Schaad
>>>>> <[e-mail]>;
>>>>> [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
>>>>> Subject: Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-ietf-jose-cfrg-curves-05:
>>>>> (with
>>>>> COMMENT)
>>>>>
>>>>> Ben Campbell has entered the following ballot position for
>>>>> draft-ietf-jose-cfrg-curves-05: 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-jose-cfrg-curves/
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> COMMENT:
>>>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>
>>>>> I note that the reference to RFC7748 is a normative downref that does not
>>>>> appear to be mentioned in the last call announcement. It’s not in the
>>>>> downref
>>>>> registry, but since it's an algorithm spec, it probably should be. I
>>>>> don't suggest
>>>>> any particular course of action; I merely bring it up in case people
>>>>> hadn't already
>>>>> noticed.
>>>>>
>>
>>
>



-- 

Best regards,
Kathleen