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

[joel jaeggli <[e-mail]>]

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.
>>>>
>
>