Re: Withdrawal of Approval and Second Last Call: draft-housley-tls-authz-extns

[Peter Sylvester <Peter.Sylvester at edelweb.fr>]

I think that the current texts would merit some additional work.
In particular to permit authorisation statements and to clarify
that how which client acts as a proxy for someone else.

I mentioned the first part to the authors some time ago, but
they didn't buy the idea.

Sam Hartman wrote:
> Folks, we didn't get a lot of support expressed in the second last
> call.  If I were making a consensus call today I'd say we do not have
> consensus to publish draft-housley-tls-authz-extns as a proposed
> standard given the IPR claims against it.
>
> However Russ pointed out to me that it may be that people thought this
> was a typical last call where silence meant agreement.  I think even
> under that interpretation things look grim: silence means agreement
> with the prevailing expressed opinion.
>
>
> But to make absolutely sure I propose to conduct a last call to
> confirm that we don't have consensus to publish as a proposed
> standard.  Does this seem like the right approach to folks?  I plan to
> take some next step within the next couple of days based on input.
>
> I'm sorry this issue is taking up so much of the community's time.
>
> Sam Hartman
> Security Area Director
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf mailing list
> Ietf at ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
>
>
>

Attachment: smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf