IANA does ask for the expert review as part of the processing it does even for standards track documents. This is because, in part, they are responsible for doing the final number assignment. That is which number in the range is actually used. The interesting question would be what happens if the IESG and the DEs disagree about such things. I would expect that this would result in a long discussion with some type of final agreement between them.
Jim > -----Original Message----- > From: Alexey Melnikov [mailto:aamelni...@fastmail.fm] > Sent: Sunday, March 4, 2018 11:19 AM > To: The IESG <i...@ietf.org> > Cc: draft-ietf-ace-cbor-web-to...@ietf.org; ace-cha...@ietf.org; > ka...@mit.edu; ace@ietf.org > Subject: Alexey Melnikov's No Objection on draft-ietf-ace-cbor-web-token- > 12: (with COMMENT) > > Alexey Melnikov has entered the following ballot position for > draft-ietf-ace-cbor-web-token-12: 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-ace-cbor-web-token/ > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > COMMENT: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Just to double check: a CWT claim registration from a Proposed Standard still > needs to be submitted to the review mailing list, but it is not really > subject to > Expert Review, correct? You might want to make it clearer. _______________________________________________ Ace mailing list Ace@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ace
