On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 10:41 AM, Scott Bradner <sob@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > process-wise I think you are fine as long as it was last-called for the > status you now intend Great, that what I was thinking, but wanted to make this error known to be on the safe side. Thanks, Kathleen > > the general issue is addressed in 2026 > > The IESG is not bound by the action recommended when the > specification was submitted. For example, the IESG may decide to > consider the specification for publication in a different category > than that requested. If the IESG determines this before the Last- > Call is issued then the Last-Call should reflect the IESG's view. > The IESG could also decide to change the publication category based > on the response to a Last-Call. If this decision would result in a > specification being published at a "higher" level than the original > Last-Call was for, a new Last-Call should be issued indicating the > IESG recommendation. In addition, the IESG may decide to recommend > the formation of a new Working Group in the case of significant > controversy in response to a Last-Call for specification not > originating from an IETF Working Group. > > any you are on the right side of that discussion > > Scott > > On Nov 17, 2015, at 10:34 AM, Kathleen Moriarty > <kathleen.moriarty.ietf@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > 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 > > -- Best regards, Kathleen