Hi Brian, Hannes, On 08/09/15 20:24, Hannes Tschofenig wrote: >> > The downref to RFC7251 was not mentioned in the last call and that RFC >> > isn't >> > in the downref registry. ((Yes, I've been in the IESG and I know how >> > annoying this can be, but it's a process glitch.)) >> > > Thanks for pointing this out.
Yep, mea culpa for not spotting that. However, RFC 7252 (CoAP, a PS) also has a normative reference to 7251, on which basis I think we can safely claim that this is no longer a downref. Actually, it looks like the downref also wasn't called out in the CoAP IETF LC, but I guess the sky didn't fall, so that's ok:-) And recall that the definition of an ok downref is one that's "accepted by the community" (says [1]) and I think CoAP is as is AES-CCM. I plan to add 7251 to the downref registry [2] shortly, and to put the DICE profile on the Oct 1 IESG telechat. If however, that's too much of a process sin, there's still time to do another IETF LC on the DICE profile without affecting the timing. So while I figure we're ok without that, I'll do the 2nd IETF LC if anyone yells now. Cheers, S. [1] https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3967#section-3 [2] https://trac.tools.ietf.org/group/iesg/trac/wiki/DownrefRegistry
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list Gen-art@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
