RE: [TLS] Straw poll on TLS SRP status

[<Pasi.Eronen at nokia.com>]

Nelson B Bolyard wrote:

> 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.

I actually think quite the opposite; that decision *should* be
revisited for each and every RFC. 

The decision cannot depend only on the existence of IPR claims.  
Not all IPR claims and license terms are equal.  And IPR claims 
anyway usually cover only IPR held by those contributing to the 
work; it's even likely that other IPR might be found later, 
after the document has been published.

But most importantly, not all documents are equal. There are some
things we probably want on standards track even though there is
other-than-royalty-free IPR (IPsec is one obvious example). Other
documents could be better off Informational/Experimental even in the
absence of any IPR.

<snip>

> 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.

That decision was not made by the chairs (*): there was a straw poll,
the result of which was that there was no WG consensus to publish it
as PS, so it went Informational.

We're having a similar straw poll right now, so I think we are
being consistent -- the decisions are made by rough WG consensus,
not formal rules.

(*) Disclaimer: I wasn't chair back then, and I supported PS.

Best regards,
Pasi

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