Re: [jose] Richard Barnes' Discuss on draft-ietf-jose-json-web-key-33: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org> Sat, 18 October 2014 19:01 UTC

Return-Path: <barryleiba@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: jose@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: jose@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E75321A017C; Sat, 18 Oct 2014 12:01:21 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.277
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.277 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id FqPyTpPAfrRj; Sat, 18 Oct 2014 12:01:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-la0-x22c.google.com (mail-la0-x22c.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c03::22c]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3B1C81A0105; Sat, 18 Oct 2014 12:01:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-la0-f44.google.com with SMTP id hs14so2164273lab.31 for <multiple recipients>; Sat, 18 Oct 2014 12:01:17 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject :from:to:cc:content-type; bh=gFzBboixvxq0ZQHD09votzScvMlO63kJVjJ6jyNWULY=; b=PNfpf2B9vG8NYXjosSUJmPgznCOWEBhnWvyRMXxWlQCWFUweGT1pMtluXvq7mgkdjN YVPEGMDQWBwRsCYICPXbrT3KqZlUHVvRTmSRN7yaoHzBHb0miBy1nSEW98+bSvTmlNFO 81ewF8LPmnM5W3pZur3sgeP2+HcM7eGqMPRAwFh9Th9Skcf+u7ICk+NSHTCO/Q49IbLo db86bty0Ia5lLRzf9JRMAfjvxs0m3ZCob24BNKq/vGP+8RsBSx1Rgh96rxwvw/3fZiZk +JajB/chmNUfClpoxBG/+2UEc72tvpORl5y+7Ar2iwhH6oZ3e+ske/3vJJhrOwV9gWJB SOkw==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.152.43.97 with SMTP id v1mr16652982lal.3.1413658877536; Sat, 18 Oct 2014 12:01:17 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: barryleiba@gmail.com
Received: by 10.152.8.103 with HTTP; Sat, 18 Oct 2014 12:01:17 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAL02cgQWH+is-L3z9PTAywRuxXjPFyu_viHrkNEhCBu73ex4YQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4E1F6AAD24975D4BA5B16804296739439BB0D5BF@TK5EX14MBXC286.redmond.corp.microsoft.com> <CAL02cgQWH+is-L3z9PTAywRuxXjPFyu_viHrkNEhCBu73ex4YQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 18 Oct 2014 15:01:17 -0400
X-Google-Sender-Auth: sH_zgRBqrbMlvtd2ONiAoNunxxA
Message-ID: <CALaySJL=J5DuXLCQeOo7tG0+ADbzPgVXvwgKXBvOJm2pAQzwYw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>
To: Richard Barnes <rlb@ipv.sx>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c356263aae9b0505b71b68
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/jose/oXoc_ZgdFT7T75suuH_BH6_VnWs
Cc: "jose-chairs@tools.ietf.org" <jose-chairs@tools.ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-jose-json-web-key@tools.ietf.org" <draft-ietf-jose-json-web-key@tools.ietf.org>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, "jose@ietf.org" <jose@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [jose] Richard Barnes' Discuss on draft-ietf-jose-json-web-key-33: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: jose@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Javascript Object Signing and Encryption <jose.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/jose>, <mailto:jose-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/jose/>
List-Post: <mailto:jose@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:jose-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/jose>, <mailto:jose-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 18 Oct 2014 19:01:22 -0000

>
> Per the spec, jose-reg-review@ietf.org
>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','jose-reg-review@ietf.org');> is already
>> the recommended name.  Yes, we would create this list before final
>> approval, just as oauth-ext-review@ietf.org
>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','oauth-ext-review@ietf.org');> was created
>> before RFC 6749 was approved.  I hope that you'll choose to withdraw this
>> DISCUSS on that basis.
>>
>
> That sounds fine to me.  Who has the action to get that list set up?
>

It'd be the responsible AD, setting up a non-WG list.  I'm sure Kathleen is
just waiting for the naming discussion to come to resolution (which it now
has).

Barry