1) Given the situation, I would find Experimental a more appropriate status for the document (and it seems that the required IANA assignments can be obtained without being on standards track, so probably no changed would be needed in the document). 2) If this was published in a more academic environment, it would be proper (and required) to cite related work, tracing the source of ideas that were not entirely new. We don't usually have extensive citations in RFCs, but in this context, perhaps it would be appropriate to mention the previous proposal for sending ACs in TLS (draft-ietf-tls-attr-cert from 1998) in the Acknowledgements section. 3) Recent discussions on the TLS WG mailing list pointed out a possible problem in the draft (which it might not be too late to fix): there are some 2-byte length fields, which limit contents to 65535 bytes. That might be plenty for X.509 ACs (although TLS does use three-byte length field for X.509 PKCs), but perhaps not so plenty for SAML assertions. Best regards, Pasi _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf