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

["Ben Campbell" <[e-mail]>]

On 17 Aug 2016, at 11:56, joel jaeggli 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.

Hasn't that historically still been handled on a spec by spec basis?