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

[Sam Hartman <hartmans-ietf at mit.edu>]

>>>>> "Dean" == Dean Anderson <dean at av8.com> writes:

    Dean> On Wed, 30 May 2007, Sam Hartman wrote:
    >> >>>>> "Dean" == Dean Anderson <dean at av8.com> writes:
    >> 
    Dean> I believe the IETF announced that it would be sending this
    Dean> draft back to the 'starting gate'.  To me, that means that
    Dean> TLS has to do several things:
    >>  Dean, Eric has corrected your statements about where this
    >> draft is in the process.

    Dean> Yes. I have to say, I'm not too happy about that, and am
    Dean> feeling misled yet again.  I expected more effort than just
    Dean> posting an email requesting comment to the TLS working
    Dean> group. I understood the TLS working group was going to do
    Dean> some work on the draft to find out if the patented standard
    Dean> is actually worth the trouble, and __approve__ or __reject__
    Dean> the draft independently of the IESG.  What is actually
    Dean> happening is less even than a rubber-stamp. (a rubber stamp
    Dean> is -some- approval)
It would be great if members of the TLS working group would do the
work of determining  "whether the patented standard is worth the trouble."
I cannot force them to do the work.
I can consider how much work gets done  when I evaluate the comments tomorrow.

    Dean> It seems your rubber-stamp process does not permit enough
    Dean> time to come up with an alternative, nor is there any
    Dean> working group to work on doing so.  

I'd certainly take comments from specific parties claiming to be
dedicating effort to developing or exploring alternatives very
seriously.  I.E. I'm not going to take a claim that "someone should
explore alternatives" all that seriously.  I would take a claim that
"Alice, Bob and two of their friends are working on exploring
alternatives and request a month to do so," as very interesting.  I'd
take a claim that "Alice and bob are working on writing up the
following alternative; they should be done with a 00 draft within x
months after Chicago" as even more interesting input.

    Dean> 1) Consider non-patented alternatives in accordance with
    Dean> RFC2418 and RFC3979.
    >>  Dean, this is an excellent idea. Anyone who wants to including
    >> you can discuss alternatives to the technology. The
    >> availability of other ways to do this--particularly when
    >> combined with information about whether people are willing to
    >> do the necessary work to write up and implement these
    >> alternatives--would be great input to the IESG. I'd appreciate
    >> anything you can do in this regard.

    Dean> To what working group should I take this work to?  Not TLS,
    Dean> it hasn't agreed (has affirmatively refused) to take on this
    Dean> work.

The tls mailing list is a fine place to have the initial discussion.
If you get to a draft and the TLS working group declines the draft,
then we could follow the standard procedure for bringing new work to
the IESG.  You'd presumably ask me to sponsor your draft as an
individual submission.  I might decide that a BOF was more
appropriate, or I might try and pressure the TLS working group into
accepting the work.  At this stage though getting a concrete proposal
on the table is the clear first step.

    >> so if you want to propose an alternative, you should do so.  If
    >> you know others who want to propose an alternative you should
    >> encourage them.

    Dean> Yes, I do. Where should I tell them to go?  This subject is
    Dean> off-topic for TLS after the chair refuses to take up the
    Dean> subject.  You can't have it both ways; unless you _want_ a
    Dean> whitewash.

The tls list.

    Dean> You've officially asked for comments, but this group refuses
    Dean> to do any work on the matter.  A convenient conundrum; A
    Dean> catch-22.  And when no work gets done, you "don't have to
    Dean> wait around before re-approving".  That is a charade; A
    Dean> sham; A debacle.

    >> That's why we are soliciting comments.  The ietf list
    >> discussion was in the minds of some inconclusive.

    Dean> Actually, I think it was ended in the premise that the TLS
    Dean> working group would work on the document, and there is
    Dean> nothing to discuss until that is done.

That is not my understanding.


Thanks for your input,

--Sam

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