Subject: [Webpush] Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on draft-ietf-webpush-vapid-03: (with COMMENT)

From: Mirja Kühlewind <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2017 04:39:23 -0700

Mirja Kühlewind has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-webpush-vapid-03: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-webpush-vapid/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Wondering if the new registry in section 6.2 is really needed. Is it expected
that new parameters show up any time soon? For me this doc reads like that's
the only two parameter you actually need.

---

From: Martin Thomson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2017 10:05:06 +1000

> the only two parameter you actually need.

I think that ekr's DISCUSS might make it clear that it isn't a
complete waste of effort :)

---

From: "Mirja Kuehlewind (IETF)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2017 13:26:45 +0200

I don’t know because Ekr proposes basically a different initial design which still doesn’t give my any hints if extensibility is needed in future; also you can always update this draft and add a registry later if a need comes up. But anyway not an issue. Do whatever you think is the right thing to do!

> Am 16.08.2017 um 02:05 schrieb Martin Thomson <[email-masked]>:
>