Re: TLS WG Chair Comments on draft-ietf-tls-authz-07

[Michael StJohns <mstjohns at comcast.net>]

Hi Eric -

I went to review the bidding on the TLS mailing list covering this period
and it appears the archives at

http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tls/current/maillist.html 
only go back to the beginning of the year.  Could you point me at a
more complete archive covering the period and the discussions about TLS
WG interest in this document please?

With respect to this document, I'm not quite sure what you're proposing
here.  Are you requesting the authors re-submit the document to the
TLS WG as a work item that will actually be worked on?  Are you
asserting that only non-controversial individual contributor items should
be standardized as a general rule and that the WG is the arbiter of what
is "controversial"?  

My understanding from what record I've found is that the item was
submitted to the WG and the WG "no-bid" the work item and it
continued - legitimately - under the existing rules as an individual
submission. It sounds like from your WG chair comments that you're
proposing that non-WG submissions should never become standards track
documents.  If that's not the case, could you elaborate on why you
"do not believe that advancing a two year old document which is
clearly in scope of an active WG is an appropriate use of the individual
submission process."


Thanks - Mike


At 12:33 AM 2/11/2009, Eric Rescorla wrote:
> [Resent with proper addressing
> information]
>
> As chairs of the TLS Working Group, we request that the IESG not
> approve draft-ietf-tls-authz-07 as a Proposed Standard. This
> document
> was initially brought to the TLS WG, which passed on it due to lack
> of
> interest and it was subsequently advanced as an individual
> submission,
> but IESG approval was rescinded after the disclosure of IPR that
> affected the document. These events occurred in late 2006 and early
> 2007. In the nearly two years since the previous attempts at
> progressing the document, the authors have not coordinated with the
> TLS WG. The TLS WG was not consulted prior to the start of this new
> Last Call.