Re: [jose] Barry Leiba's No Objection on draft-ietf-jose-json-web-algorithms-32: (with COMMENT)

[Barry Leiba <[e-mail]>]

>> 2 (the real point). I don't understand how the two sentences relate to each
>> other.  The first sentence seems to say that the DE(s) can change
>> implementation requirements on their own.  The second says it has to be done
>> using Specification Required (which doesn't really need to be said, as
>> that's the policy for the registry anyway).
>>
>> Which is it?  If it's Specification Required, then anyone can propose a
>> change, using a specification, and the DE(s) will review that as they do any
>> other registration request.
>
> The intent is for both to be required - that a specification be written
> proposing the change and the designated experts approve the change.  I can
> look into a wording change to make this clearer when the document is next
> revised.

OK, but that's just normal Specification Required.  It's fine if you
want to point out that updates can also be made using the
Specification Required policy... but please avoid making it look like
you're setting up something special, as that might wind up being
confusing.

Barry