The draft below was sent through last call as Proposed Standard, which was intended, but the document header was listed as informational. If there is no issue changing the header and proceeding as proposed standard, we'll go ahead with that. Please let me know if there is a problem and we'll put it through as informational, it was marked correctly everywhere else and did go through the 4 week last call process. Thank you, Kathleen > Subject: Last Call: <draft-santesson-auth-context-extension-09.txt> > (Authentication Context Certificate Extension) to Proposed Standard > Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2015 15:08:19 -0700 > From: The IESG <iesg-secretary@xxxxxxxx> > Reply-To: ietf@xxxxxxxx > To: IETF-Announce <ietf-announce@xxxxxxxx> > > > The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider > the following document: > - 'Authentication Context Certificate Extension' > <draft-santesson-auth-context-extension-09.txt> as Proposed Standard > > The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits > final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the > ietf@xxxxxxxx mailing lists by 2015-10-27. Exceptionally, comments may be > sent to iesg@xxxxxxxx instead. In either case, please retain the > beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting. > > Abstract > > > This document defines an extension to certificates according to > [RFC5280]. The extension defined in this document holds data about > how the certificate subject was authenticated by the Certification > Authority that issued the certificate in which this extension appears > > This document also defines one data structure for inclusion in this > Extension. The data structure is designed to hold information when > the subject is authenticated using a SAML assertion [SAML]. > > > > > The file can be obtained via > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-santesson-auth-context-extension/ > > IESG discussion can be tracked via > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-santesson-auth-context-extension/ballot/ > > > No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D. > > Note: The editorial comments in the shepherd report have been addressed. > These will be removed/updated in a future version of the shepherd > report, but I didn't want to hold up processing of this draft any further. > > > > -- Best regards, Kathleen