Re: [TLS] Comments on draft-housley-tls-authz-extns-07

[Eric Rescorla <ekr at networkresonance.com>]

At Tue, 29 May 2007 17:12:59 -0400 (EDT),
Dean Anderson wrote:
> 
> I believe the IETF announced that it would be sending this draft back to
> the 'starting gate'.  To me, that means that TLS has to do several
> things:
> 
> 1) Consider non-patented alternatives in accordance with RFC2418 and
> RFC3979.
> 
> 2) Obtain a thorough review and consensus per RFC2026 and RFC2418.
> 
> 3) Pass a working group last-call, per RFC2026 and RFC2418.
> 
> So, the TLS working group should consider and process the draft as
> though it were just now submitted for the first time.

<speaking as chair>

Dean,

That is not correct. This is (and was) an AD sponsored submission.
The TLS WG was previously asked if it wished to take on this document
and said no. The question of whether this document should go back to
ground zero (i.e., as if that discussion had not taken place)
is not really an appropriate one for this group and should be
addressed to the IESG or the IETF mailing list. If you want to
argue that TLS-WG SHOULD take up this kind of work, that is of
course approriate, but it's not a procedural requirement here.


> As I understand the IESG position, it is not considering publication at
> the present time, and the document is not presently on the IESG agenda,
> and will not be on the agenda until a last-call is requested by the TLS
> working group chair. If my understanding is not correct, please correct
> me.

This is incorrect. The IESG is now considering publication and it
is in that context that they asked the TLS WG for its opinion.

-Ekr




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