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

Mike Jones <Michael.Jones@microsoft.com> Tue, 30 September 2014 18:50 UTC

From: Mike Jones <Michael.Jones@microsoft.com>
To: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>
Thread-Topic: Barry Leiba's No Objection on draft-ietf-jose-json-web-algorithms-32: (with COMMENT)
Thread-Index: AQHP2M2p40kNJRGfoE2XYlz5+tEBApwYsvmQgAE1o4CAACPigA==
Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2014 18:49:20 +0000
Message-ID: <4E1F6AAD24975D4BA5B16804296739439BAA5B74@TK5EX14MBXC288.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
References: <20140925143306.27044.78134.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <4E1F6AAD24975D4BA5B16804296739439BAA1160@TK5EX14MBXC288.redmond.corp.microsoft.com> <CALaySJKrAtbESig43dZK=mg9jF_kxnt4Fk-_tKnJ-munYzXFtw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CALaySJKrAtbESig43dZK=mg9jF_kxnt4Fk-_tKnJ-munYzXFtw@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_4E1F6AAD24975D4BA5B16804296739439BAA5B74TK5EX14MBXC288r_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received-SPF: Pass (protection.outlook.com: domain of microsoft.com designates 131.107.125.37 as permitted sender) receiver=protection.outlook.com; client-ip=131.107.125.37; helo=mail.microsoft.com;
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/jose/qO9EAIlJ1-KxmZSoKlNyCqcaeDA
Cc: "jose-chairs@tools.ietf.org" <jose-chairs@tools.ietf.org>, "jose@ietf.org" <jose@ietf.org>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-jose-json-web-algorithms@tools.ietf.org" <draft-ietf-jose-json-web-algorithms@tools.ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [jose] Barry Leiba's No Objection on draft-ietf-jose-json-web-algorithms-32: (with COMMENT)
Precedence: list


-----Original Message-----
From: barryleiba@gmail.com [mailto:barryleiba@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Barry Leiba
Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2014 9:40 AM
To: Mike Jones
Cc: The IESG; jose-chairs@tools.ietf.org; draft-ietf-jose-json-web-algorithms@tools.ietf.org; jose@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Barry Leiba's No Objection on draft-ietf-jose-json-web-algorithms-32: (with COMMENT)



>> 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.



Understood.  I'll plan on revising the description accordingly.



Barry



                                                            Thanks again,

                                                            -- Mike

Re: [jose] Barry Leiba's No Objection on draft-ie… Mike Jones
Re: [jose] Barry Leiba's No Objection on draft-ie… Barry Leiba
Re: [jose] Barry Leiba's No Objection on draft-ie… Mike Jones
Re: [jose] Barry Leiba's No Objection on draft-ie… Mike Jones