Publication track for IBE documents (Was Second Last Call...)

[Tim Polk <tim.polk at nist.gov>]

Okay, I fat fingered this one.  The S/MIME WG actually forwarded  
these documents
with a recommendation that they be published as Informational.  I  
intended to respect
that consensus, but for one reason or another, they ended up in the  
Tracker marked
for Standards track.

It is clear that the WG got this one right, and I have changed the  
intended status on
both documents to Informational.

Thanks,

Tim Polk

> Harald wrote:
>
> > SM wrote:
> >
> >
> > > At 05:37 20-10-2008, The IESG wrote:
> > > This is a second last call for consideration of the following  
> > > document
> > > from the S/MIME Mail Security WG (smime):
> > >
> > > - 'Using the Boneh-Franklin and Boneh-Boyen identity-based  
> > > Encryption
> > >    Algorithms with the Cryptographic Message Syntax (CMS) '
> > >    <draft-ietf-smime-bfibecms-10.txt> as a Proposed Standard
> > >
> > > Technical issues raised in IETF Last Call and IESG evaluation  
> > > have been
> > > resolved.  However, there have been substantive changes in the  
> > > relevant
> > > IPR disclosures statements since the review process was initiated.
> > > Specifically, IPR disclosure statement #888,
> > >            (see https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/888/)
> > > was replaced by PR disclosure statement #950,
> > >            (see https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/950/)
> > >
> > > This Last Call is intended to confirm continued community support in
> > > light of the new IPR disclosure statement.  Given the limited  
> > > scope of
> > > this Last Call, an abbreviated time period has been selected.
> >
> >
> > Disclosure statement #888 mentions draft-martin-ibcs-08. That I-D  
> > was published as RFC 5091 in December 2007. Disclosure #950  
> > submitted in May 2008 mentions new licensing terms for RFC 5091.  
> > That disclosure mentions that draft-ietf-smime-bfibecms-10 is on  
> > the Informational Track whereas it is on the Standards Track.
> >
> > As there seems to be only one implementation and very little  
> > public discussion about the draft, I don't see why it should be on  
> > the Standards Track.
>
>
> With licensing terms like these, I would want to see a compelling  
> argument for why the community needs it standardized to put it on  
> the standards track.
>
> Let it be informational.
>
>                  Harald







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