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

[Kathleen Moriarty <[e-mail]>]

On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 12:43 PM, Ben Campbell <[e-mail]> wrote:
> On 17 Aug 2016, at 11:39, 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.
>
>
> We have been discussing the relaxation of the (repeated) last call
> requirement, both in the IESG and in Barry's draft. I'm not sure that
> discussion has reached it's conclusion. I'm not sure what we should do in
> the interim (this my comment about not suggesting any particular course of
> action.)
>
> By the way, I think both were mentioned in the shepherd write up, but not in
> the last call announcement.

OK, the shepherd report was there prior to last call, so hopefully
that is enough to not require a second last call?

Thanks,
Kathleen

>
> Ben.
>
>
>>
>> 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



-- 

Best regards,
Kathleen