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 mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf