<html><head><meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body dir="auto"><div>The VoT spec is also experimental.</div><div id="AppleMailSignature"><br></div><div id="AppleMailSignature">Having a normative dependence on an experimental spec creates instability and devalues this spec. Or is the intent that igov be experimental?</div><div id="AppleMailSignature"><br>Phil</div><div><br>On Sep 11, 2017, at 4:48 AM, John Bradley via Openid-specs-igov <<a href="mailto:openid-specs-igov@lists.openid.net">openid-specs-igov@lists.openid.net</a>> wrote:<br><br></div><div><span></span></div><blockquote type="cite"><div><div dir="auto">Forwarding a comment on the vote. <div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">It is not uncommon for OIDF implimentors drafts to have dependencies on ID. As it is not uncommon for IETF WG specs to reference other drafts. </div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Strictly speaking vot is a AD sponsors draft so not the same status as a Individual Draft. Yes the IETF has mysterious ways. </div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">To discuss the IETF process and that document the SAG list is best.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">The iGov WG has had extensive conversations with NIST and the UK and included VOT at there request. NIST is working on a profile of VOT.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">People interested in the iGov discussion with NIST should join the WG. </div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">As document Sheppard I have been talking to NIST and others about there ability to profile VOT. Getting feedback on that is one of the reasons vot has not been progressed to the IESG yet. That will however happening soon, unless more feedback is received in the IETF process. </div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Honestly the more feedback the better. Sometimes it takes specs referencing important work like VOT before people become aware of them. </div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">I don't think we have a issue with the iGov implimentors draft, but others can differ.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Regards </div><div dir="auto">John B. </div></div><div class="gmail_quote">---------- Forwarded message ----------<br>From: "Prateek Mishra" <<a href="mailto:Prateek.Mishra@oracle.com">Prateek.Mishra@oracle.com</a>><br>Date: Sep 11, 2017 00:44<br>Subject: Fwd: Regarding the vote on Implementer’s Drafts of Two iGov Specifications<br>To: "John Bradley" <<a href="mailto:ve7jtb@ve7jtb.com">ve7jtb@ve7jtb.com</a>>, "Phil Hunt (IDM)" <<a href="mailto:phil.hunt@oracle.com">phil.hunt@oracle.com</a>><br>Cc: <br><br type="attribution"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div style="word-wrap:break-word"><br><div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div>Begin forwarded message:</div><br class="m_3929318183004595497Apple-interchange-newline"><div style="margin-top:0px;margin-right:0px;margin-bottom:0px;margin-left:0px"><span style="font-family:-webkit-system-font,Helvetica Neue,Helvetica,sans-serif;color:rgba(0,0,0,1.0)"><b>From: </b></span><span style="font-family:-webkit-system-font,Helvetica Neue,Helvetica,sans-serif">Prateek Mishra <<a href="mailto:Prateek.Mishra@oracle.com" target="_blank">Prateek.Mishra@oracle.com</a>><br></span></div><div style="margin-top:0px;margin-right:0px;margin-bottom:0px;margin-left:0px"><span style="font-family:-webkit-system-font,Helvetica Neue,Helvetica,sans-serif;color:rgba(0,0,0,1.0)"><b>Subject: </b></span><span style="font-family:-webkit-system-font,Helvetica Neue,Helvetica,sans-serif"><b>Regarding the vote on Implementer’s Drafts of Two iGov Specifications</b><br></span></div><div style="margin-top:0px;margin-right:0px;margin-bottom:0px;margin-left:0px"><span style="font-family:-webkit-system-font,Helvetica Neue,Helvetica,sans-serif;color:rgba(0,0,0,1.0)"><b>Date: </b></span><span style="font-family:-webkit-system-font,Helvetica Neue,Helvetica,sans-serif">September 10, 2017 at 10:42:35 PM PDT<br></span></div><div style="margin-top:0px;margin-right:0px;margin-bottom:0px;margin-left:0px"><span style="font-family:-webkit-system-font,Helvetica Neue,Helvetica,sans-serif;color:rgba(0,0,0,1.0)"><b>To: </b></span><span style="font-family:-webkit-system-font,Helvetica Neue,Helvetica,sans-serif"><a href="mailto:openid-specs-igov@lists.openid.net" target="_blank">openid-specs-igov@lists.<wbr>openid.net</a><br></span></div><br><div><div style="word-wrap:break-word">The document has a normative reference to a Vectors of Trust “standard”. The so called normative reference is an individual draft and has no standing at this time. <div><br></div><div>The draft <a href="https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-richer-vectors-of-trust-05" target="_blank">https://tools.ietf.org/<wbr>html/draft-richer-vectors-of-<wbr>trust-05</a> has been somewhat updated to reflect NIST 800-63-3’s new components, but does not align.</div><div><br></div><div>We have voted “OBJECT” on this draft and would like to see this worked through first.</div><div><br></div><div>— prateek</div><div><br></div></div></div></blockquote></div><br></div></blockquote></div>
</div></blockquote></body></html>