Subject: Re: [jose] #83: Section 7. IANA Considerations

From: "jose issue tracker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2013 13:32:52 -0000

#83: Section 7. IANA Considerations

Changes (by [email-masked]):

 * status:  new => closed
 * resolution:   => fixed

Old description:

> A. What happens if, within the review period, the registration has no
> comments?
>
> B. In this section - there is an argument about the use of must vs MUST
> in 2119 language.  Some people think this is a protocol requirement even
> if it is lower case.
>
> C. Is there any requirement to deal with conflicts of interest in the
> expert reviewer list?  For example if OpenID wants to register a new
> parameter, should it be required that a non OpenID person do the review?

New description:

 A. What happens if, within the review period, the registration has no
 comments?

 * FIXED

 B. In this section - there is an argument about the use of must vs MUST in
 2119 language.  Some people think this is a protocol requirement even if
 it is lower case.

 * FIXED

 C. Is there any requirement to deal with conflicts of interest in the
 expert reviewer list?  For example if OpenID wants to register a new
 parameter, should it be required that a non OpenID person do the review?

 * FIXED

--

-- 
-------------------------+-------------------------------------------------
 Reporter:               |       Owner:  draft-ietf-jose-json-web-
  [email-masked] |  [email-masked]
     Type:  defect       |      Status:  closed
 Priority:  major        |   Milestone:
Component:  json-web-    |     Version:
  key                    |  Resolution:  fixed
 Severity:  -            |
 Keywords:               |
-------------------------+-------------------------------------------------

Ticket URL: <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/jose/trac/ticket/83#comment:1>
jose <http://tools.ietf.org/jose/>