Re: [TLS] Straw poll on TLS SRP status

[Nelson B Bolyard <nelson at bolyard.com>]

Pasi.Eronen at nokia.com wrote:
> Folks,
> 
> The one remaining issue with TLS SRP is its intended status (Proposed
> Standard, Informational, or Experimental). I and Eric think we need
> more data to determine consensus here, so this message starts a
> two-week straw poll on this issue. (Our apologies that this has 
> taken so long; this poll should have been some time ago already.)
> 
> The question is: Do you support advancing draft-ietf-tls-srp as 
> Proposed Standard? 
> 
>    [ ] Yes.
>    [ ] I think Informational/Experimental is better.
>    [ ] I don't care about the status, just get it published.
>    [x] Something else, please state:

I think the WG must be consistent about whether or not IPR (other than
royalty-free IPR) forces an RFC into Informational/Experimental status.
That decision should not be revisited for each and every RFC that may
encounter it.

RFC 4492, the ECC-in-TLS RFC, was forced into Informational because the
IPR status was uncertain to some WG members, even though there are two
major browsers that offer it (one open source), servers from several
vendors that offer it, and it is implemented in at least TWO different
open source TLS implementations.  I think that's sufficient precedent.

Note that I don't think that "Informational/Experimental is better."
but rather that it is what the WG has done in the past, and the WG
should remain consistent, or else the chairs should explain why they
insisted on it before and are now not doing so.

_______________________________________________
TLS mailing list
TLS at lists.ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls