At Fri, 28 Sep 2007 16:39:05 -0400 (EDT),
Dean Anderson wrote:
On Fri, 21 Sep 2007, Tim Polk wrote:
The TLS working group declined to take this work on. That is
different from not supporting publication.
The above isn't a true statement. The name of the draft
"draft-housley-tls-authz-extns" contains the name of the working group,
a fact that indicates it is a working group document. After the fraud
by Housley was discovered, and the approval was removed, the TLS Working
Group was asked, but no longer supported the protocol because of the
patent. See Rescorla's message, quoted above.
Dean,
Your statement above is inaccurate. The -tls- in the document name
does not mean that the document is a WG document. It's quite common
to have draft-<individual>-<wg> documents, which generally indicates
that the named individual believes the document is targets at that
WG. As an example, consider the following documents:
draft-bryan-p2psip-reload-01.txt
draft-jennings-p2psip-asp-00.txt
draft-matthews-p2psip-hip-hop-00.txt
These are all alternative documents targeted at the P2PSIP WG
(there are about 5 more, too) but none have been accepted by the WG.
This document has never been a work item of the TLS WG.
-Ekr
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf