[TLS] Re: Straw poll on TLS SRP status

[Simon Josefsson <simon at josefsson.org>]

Nelson B Bolyard <nelson at bolyard.com> writes:

> 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.

I agree with this.  I think it would be useful if the WG could develop
some simple criteria related to patents, i.e., when a specific
technology can and cannot go to the Standards Track.

There may be exceptional situations when such simple criteria aren't
applicable -- and, alas, one could argue that both TLS-SRP and TLS-ECC
are complex enough not to fit under simple guidelines -- but then the WG
can discuss per-case what the answer should be.  The WG criterias can be
updated after such incidents.

Having simple guidelines written down would make the procedures appear
more open and would encourage consistency.  Right now the process seems
arbitrary, and is open to hijacking by those who shout the strongest at
the moment, and further, can easily be FUDed by referencing patents
whose relevance have not been established.  I volunteer to help such an
effort or document.

/Simon

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