Re: [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-httpbis-client-cert-field-04

I'd also add that (in HTTP/2 and HTTP/3), header compression reduces repeat instances of the same header field to a few bytes at most, given an appropriately large header compression table. This is also part of the reasoning for separating the chain from the certificate, as the chain is likely

Re: [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-cbor-date-tag-05

I agree with Jim's response to the comparison question. An RFC is being created because a tag is being registered in the Specification Required range of the Tags Registry specified at https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7049#section-7.2. -- Mike -Ori

Re: [Gen-art] Genart telechat review of draft-ietf-secevent-http-poll-11

Thanks Robert. I applied your proposed language to the appendix in Push. Thanks again, -- Mike -Original Message- From: Robert Sparks via Datatracker Sent: Monday, June 22, 2020 12:50 PM To: gen-art@ietf.org Cc: draft

Re: [Gen-art] [Id-event] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-secevent-http-poll-09

* https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-secevent-http-poll-11 Thanks all, -- Mike P.S. I also wrote about these revisions at https://self-issued.info/?p=2103 and as @selfissued<http

Re: [Gen-art] [Id-event] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-secevent-http-poll-09

. Cheers, -- Mike From: Richard Backman, Annabelle Sent: Tuesday, June 9, 2020 4:40 PM To: Dick Hardt ; Mike Jones Cc: last-c...@ietf.org; Valery Smyslov ; gen-art@ietf.org; Yaron Sheffer ; draft-ietf

Re: [Gen-art] [Id-event] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-secevent-http-poll-09

nsistent changes there as well. I hope to hear back from the working group with your thoughts this week. -- Mike -Original Message- From: Yaron Sheffer Sent: Friday, June 5, 2020 9:36 AM To: Mike Jones ; Robert Sparks ; gen-art@ietf.org; Valery Smyslo

Re: [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-secevent-http-push-10

Thanks for your useful review, Vijay. I've attempted to address your comments in https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-secevent-http-push-11. My replies are inline, prefixed by "Mike>". -Original Message- From: Vijay Gurbani via Datatracker Sent: Monday, May 1

Re: [Gen-art] [Id-event] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-secevent-http-poll-09

text was requested by Valery Smyslov in the SecDir review of push. I also added it here. I did think it was odd that it was requested when TLS is required, but it seemed harmless to add it. If you like, I could clarify that this should never occur. --

Re: [Gen-art] [Id-event] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-secevent-http-poll-09

Thanks for the quick reply. My responses are inline, prefixed by "Mike>". -Original Message- From: Robert Sparks Sent: Thursday, June 4, 2020 2:51 PM To: Mike Jones ; gen-art@ietf.org Cc: last-c...@ietf.org; draft-ietf-secevent-http-poll@ietf.org; id-ev...@ietf.or

Re: [Gen-art] [Id-event] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-secevent-http-poll-09

r if an excessive amount of storage is needed to retain them. -- Mike -Original Message- From: Id-event On Behalf Of Robert Sparks via Datatracker Sent: Friday, May 8, 2020 11:57 AM To: gen-art@ietf.org Cc: last-c...@ietf.org; draft-ietf-secevent-http-p

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART Last Call review of draft-hodges-webauthn-registries-05

ted source for -06 at https://github.com/w3c/webauthn/pull/1415. Thanks again, -- Mike -Original Message- From: Paul Kyzivat Sent: Monday, April 13, 2020 11:19 AM To: draft-hodges-webauthn-registries@ietf.org Cc: Ge

Re: [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-ace-cwt-proof-of-possession-08

Hi Christer, https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ace-cwt-proof-of-possession-09 has been published, which addresses your review comments in the ways proposed below. Thanks again for your review! -- Mike From: Mike Jones Sent

Re: [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-ace-cwt-proof-of-possession-08

Thanks for your review, Christer. Replies are inline, prefixed by "Mike>"… -Original Message- From: Christer Holmberg via Datatracker Sent: Friday, October 4, 2019 10:44 AM To: gen-art@ietf.org Cc: draft-ietf-ace-cwt-proof-of-possession@ietf.org; i...@ietf.org;

Re: [Gen-art] [Ace] Genart telechat review of draft-ietf-ace-cbor-web-token-12

! -- Mike From: Dan Romascanu Sent: Tuesday, February 27, 2018 11:24 PM To: Mike Jones Cc: Jim Schaad ; gen-art ; a...@ietf.org; ietf ; Benjamin Kaduk ; draft-ietf-ace-cbor-web-token@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Ace] Genart telechat review of draft-ietf-ace

Re: [Gen-art] [Ace] Genart telechat review of draft-ietf-ace-cbor-web-token-12

...@ietf.org<mailto:jose-reg-rev...@ietf.org>) I can find more examples of the use of this publicly-visible registration procedure if you like. Regards, Dan Thanks for the careful review, Dan,

Re: [Gen-art] [Ace] Genart telechat review of draft-ietf-ace-cbor-web-token-12

other IETF Last Call feedback. Cheers, -- Mike From: Jim Schaad Sent: Tuesday, February 27, 2018 9:53 AM To: 'Dan Romascanu' ; 'Benjamin Kaduk' C

Re: [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-oauth-discovery-07

Thanks for the review and validating the examples, Brian! -Original Message- From: Brian Carpenter [mailto:brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, October 1, 2017 7:58 PM To: gen-art@ietf.org Cc: oa...@ietf.org; draft-ietf-oauth-discovery@ietf.org Subject: Genart last call review o

Re: [Gen-art] Genart telechat review of draft-jones-cose-rsa-03

https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-jones-cose-rsa-04 addresses your review comments, Roni. Thanks for the useful review! -- Mike P.S. I also thanked you in the publication announcement at http://self-issued.info/?p=1697 and

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART Telechat review of draft-ietf-oauth-amr-values-05

, -- Mike -Original Message- From: Jari Arkko [mailto:jari.ar...@piuha.net] Sent: Wednesday, February 1, 2017 11:57 AM To: Paul Kyzivat Cc: Mike Jones ; draft-ietf-oauth-amr-values@ietf.org; General Area Review Team Subject: Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART Telechat

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART Telechat review of draft-ietf-oauth-amr-values-05

cy matters. -- Mike -Original Message- From: Paul Kyzivat [mailto:pkyzi...@alum.mit.edu] Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2017 12:28 PM To: Mike Jones ; draft-ietf-oauth-amr-values@ietf.org Cc: General Area Review Team Subject: Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART Telechat revie

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART Telechat review of draft-ietf-oauth-amr-values-05

you withdraw your request to revise the registration procedure, on this basis. Thank you, -- Mike -Original Message- From: Paul Kyzivat [mailto:pkyzi...@alum.mit.edu] Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2017 9:51 AM To: draft-ietf

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART Last Call review of draft-ietf-oauth-amr-values-04

accordingly. Thanks again, -- Mike ___ Gen-art mailing list Gen-art@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-Art LC review: draft-ietf-jose-jws-signing-input-options-06

FYI, Robert, "crit" is now required with "b64", as you'd requested. -Original Message- From: Mike Jones Sent: Wednesday, December 16, 2015 4:58 PM To: 'Robert Sparks' ; General Area Review Team ; i...@ietf.org; j...@ietf.org; draft-ietf-jose-jws-sig

Re: [Gen-art] [jose] Gen-Art LC review: draft-ietf-jose-jws-signing-input-options-06

l the cases in which failure should occur. There's then no need to include an extra parameter intended to cause a failure in cases in which the failure cannot occur. -- Mike -Original Message- From: Manger, James [mailto:james.h.man...@team.telstra.

Re: [Gen-art] [jose] Gen-Art LC review: draft-ietf-jose-jws-signing-input-options-06

Hi Jim, Please see my replies to Robert and Richard. I believe they cover the point you're making below. -- Mike -Original Message- From: Jim Schaad [mailto:i...@augustcellars.com] Sent: Monday, December 14, 2015 10:42 PM To: Mike Jones ; &#

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-Art LC review: draft-ietf-jose-jws-signing-input-options-06

Best wishes, -- Mike -Original Message- From: Richard Barnes [mailto:r...@ipv.sx] Sent: Monday, December 14, 2015 5:23 PM To: Robert Sparks Cc: Mike Jones ; General Area Review Team ; i...@ietf.org; j...@ietf.org; draft-ietf-jose-jws-signing-input-opti...@ietf.org Subject: Re: Gen-Art L

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-Art LC review: draft-ietf-jose-jws-signing-input-options-06

Thanks for your thoughtful comments, Robert. Replies are inline below... > -Original Message- > From: Robert Sparks [mailto:rjspa...@nostrum.com] > Sent: Monday, December 14, 2015 5:12 PM > To: Mike Jones ; General Area Review Team > ; i...@ietf.org; j...@ietf.org; draf

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-Art LC review: draft-ietf-jose-jws-signing-input-options-06

These resolutions are now published in -07. Thanks again! -Original Message- From: Mike Jones [mailto:michael.jo...@microsoft.com] Sent: Sunday, December 13, 2015 8:05 PM To: Robert Sparks ; General Area Review Team ; i...@ietf.org; j...@ietf.org; draft-ietf-jose-jws-signing-input

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-Art LC review: draft-ietf-jose-jws-signing-input-options-06

ld be rejected. In contrast, using an implementation that understands "b64" achieves both (a) and (b) without needing to include "crit". That's why it's not required. Does that make sense now? Best wishes,

Re: [Gen-art] [jose] Gen-Art LC review: draft-ietf-jose-jws-signing-input-options-06

corner case - nonetheless, one that is already covered in the specification, should applications want to achieve that. I'm not aware of any cases that aren't already covered - especially once the new paragraph is added. -- Mike -Original Me

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-Art LC review: draft-ietf-jose-jws-signing-input-options-06

ng problems for the > serialization used, as described in Section 5. The application also incurs the > responsibility to ensure that the payload will not be modified during > retransmission. I have simplified this in the manner that you suggested. Thanks again, -- Mike ___ Gen-art mailing list Gen-art@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art

Re: [Gen-art] review: draft-ietf-jose-jwk-thumbprint-05

and use the same one." Would that work for you, or do you have alternative wording to suggest? Thanks again, -- Mike -Original Message- From: Joel Halpern [mailto:j...@joelhalpern.com] Sent: Monday, July 06, 2015 6:18 AM

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-jose-json-web-signature-33

cussion is probably needed on that topic. Thanks again, -- Mike From: jose [mailto:jose-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Mike Jones Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2014 11:11 A

Re: [Gen-art] [jose] gen-art telechat review of draft-ietf-jose-json-web-key-33

Thanks again for your review, Scott. Based upon our discussions, no changes were made to the -34 draft as a result of your comments. Thanks again, -- Mike -Original Message- From: jose [mailto:jose-boun...@ietf.org] On

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART Last Call review of draft-ietf-oauth-saml2-bearer-21

Regards, > Meral > --- > Meral Shirazipour > Ericsson > Research > www.ericsson.com Thanks again, -- Mike ___ Gen-art mailing list Gen-art@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART Telechat review of draft-ietf-jose-json-web-encryption-33.txt

Thanks for your review, Suresh. I've added the working group so they're aware of the contents of your review. -- Mike -Original Message- From: Suresh Krishnan [mailto:suresh.krish...@ericsson.com] Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2014 6:56 PM To:

Re: [Gen-art] gen-art telechat review of draft-ietf-jose-json-web-key-33

I agree with your observation about the surrounding protocol. Thanks again for the time you put into reviewing the document. -- Mike -Original Message- From: Scott Brim [mailto:scott.b...@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2014 12:59 PM To: Mike

Re: [Gen-art] [jose] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-jose-json-web-signature-33

sed on the phone. Thanks much, -- Mike From: jose [mailto:jose-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of John Bradley Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2014 1:15 PM To: Dave Cridland Cc:

Re: [Gen-art] gen-art telechat review of draft-ietf-jose-json-web-key-33

its/editorial comments: ... Scott Thanks again, -- Mike ___ Gen-art mailing list Gen-art@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-jose-json-web-signature-33

: If there is an x5u pointing to a certification issued by a major CA, is TLS required for the HTTP query used to retrieve this certificate? TLS shouldn't be needed since the certificate is a signed object. Therefore, the "MUST" use TLS for cert retrieval should be changed to

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-jose-json-web-signature-31

Given I was already editing to address Stephen’s missed comments, I added this too. -- Mike From: Kathleen Moriarty [mailto:kathleen.moriarty.i...@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, September 25, 2014 6:12 AM To: Mike Jones Cc: Russ Housley; j

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-jose-json-web-signature-31

Sounds good From: Kathleen Moriarty [mailto:kathleen.moriarty.i...@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, September 25, 2014 6:12 AM To: Mike Jones Cc: Russ Housley; j...@ietf.org; gen-art@ietf.org; i...@ietf.org Subject: Re: Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-jose-json-web-signature-31 Hi Mike, I'm just

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-jose-json-web-algorithms-31

Thanks again for your review, Roni. The resolutions discussed below have been applied in the -32 draft. -- Mike From: Roni Even [mailto:ron.even@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, September 04, 2014 2:41 PM To: Mike Jones; draft-ietf

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-jose-json-web-signature-31

Thanks again for your review, Russ. The proposed resolutions below have been applied in the -32 draft. -- Mike From: Mike Jones Sent: Monday, August 25, 2014 6:22 PM To: 'Russ Housley' Cc: j...@ietf.org Subject: RE: Gen-

[Gen-art] JOSE -32 and JWT -26 drafts addressing IETF Last Call comments

-json-web-token-26.html -- Mike P.S. This notice was also posted at http://self-issued.info/?p=1284 and as @selfissued. ___ Gen-art mailing list Gen-art@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-jose-json-web-algorithms-31

ng that it's defined in the first sentence, do you still want to see the addition? Thanks again, -- Mike ___ Gen-art mailing list Gen-art@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art

Re: [Gen-art] Last Call Review of draft-ietf-oauth-json-web-token-25

Thanks for the review, Tom. I've cc'ed the OAuth working group so that they're aware of the contents of your review. -- Mike -Original Message- From: Tom Taylor [mailto:tom.taylor.s...@gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, August 23, 2014 8:39 PM

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-jose-json-web-signature-31

There's a thread on this review on the JOSE working group list, which you can see at http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/jose/current/maillist.html. If you have comments on the proposed resolutions, please add your thoughts there. -Original Message- From: ietf [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-isis-rfc1142-to-historic-00

I agree. Mike On 17/12/2013 14:52, Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) wrote: Dan - Thanx for the review. I have no objection to your suggestion. I would hope this change can be done by the RFC Editor. Les -Original Message- From: Romascanu, Dan (Dan) [mailto:droma...@avaya.com] Sent

Re: [Gen-art] [OAUTH-WG] Gen-ART Telechat review of draft-ietf-oauth-v2-bearer-22.txt

You should actually probably make that name change request to the HTTPbis working group. I suspect that if they decide to change the name, that we could direct the RFC editor to make the same name change as HTTPbis does. -- Mike -Original Message- From

Re: [Gen-art] [OAUTH-WG] Gen-ART Telechat review of draft-ietf-oauth-v2-bearer-22.txt

, -- Mike -Original Message- From: Julian Reschke [mailto:julian.resc...@gmx.de] Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2012 10:48 AM To: Mike Jones Cc: General Area Review Team; The IESG; draft-ietf-oauth-v2-bearer@tools.ietf.org; oa...@ietf.org Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] [Gen-art

Re: [Gen-art] [OAUTH-WG] Gen-ART Telechat review of draft-ietf-oauth-v2-bearer-22.txt

until near the end of this year or later. If you have more data on that, it would be great to learn what the actual expected timeline is. Thanks, -- Mike -Original Message- From: Julian Reschke [mailto:julian.resc...@gmx.de]

Re: [Gen-art] [OAUTH-WG] Gen-ART Telechat review of draft-ietf-oauth-v2-bearer-22.txt

we *definitely* want to allow. As a result, I don't think adding a reference to RFC 4648 is either necessary or appropriate. Julian may be able to provide more background. Best wishes, -- Mike -Original Message- From:

Re: [Gen-art] [OAUTH-WG] Gen-ART Telechat review of draft-ietf-oauth-v2-bearer-22.txt

FYI, the b64 token definition is identical to the one in draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-20. If it works there, it should work for OAuth Bearer. -- Mike From: Stephen Farrell Sent: 7/17/2012 4:12 AM To: draft-ietf-oauth-v2-bearer@tools.ietf.org Cc: General Area

Re: [Gen-art] [OAUTH-WG] Gen-ART Telechat review of draft-ietf-oauth-v2-bearer-18.txt

then I'd be glad to use it. I believe that this would be significantly preferable to adding a separate OAuth Bearer errors registry that's exactly like the general-purpose one, only separate from it. Best wishes, -- M

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-oauth-v2-bearer-15.txt

f you'd like to see this reference reintroduced, I'd request that you work with Stephen on specific alternative proposed wording that is acceptable to both of you. Finally, I'll address both of your nits in the manner you suggested. Thanks again,

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART Telechat review of draft-ietf-rtgwg-lf-conv-frmwk-06

Ben Campbell wrote: I have been selected as the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) reviewer for this draft (for background on Gen-ART, please see http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art-FAQ.html). Please wait for direction from your document shepherd or AD before posting a new version of t

Re: [Gen-art] Fwd: genart LC review of draft-ietf-nfsv4-rpc-netid-03.txt (and -04)

Robert, Thanks for your comments. -05 of this I-D has been posted. Lars, I fixed the references to obsolete standards. As an FYI, I have been relying on rfc-editor.org check if RFC numbers were obsolete or not. It did not classify several RFCs as obsolete.

Re: [Gen-art] Fwd: genart LC review of draft-ietf-nfsv4-rpc-netid-03.txt (and -04)

Robert, Thanks for your comments. > typod your email address - sory. My Mother-In-Law does it all the time (mark vs mike) in line ... >> 1) There is an inconsistency between the text in 3.1 claiming >> "Netids can be up to 2^32 -1 octets in length" and the instructi

[Gen-art] Re: Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-dnsext-trustupdate-timers

At 03:03 PM 1/25/2007, Vijay K. Gurbani wrote: I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for draft-ietf-dnsext-trustupdate-timers-05.txt For background on Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at . Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Ca