[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Hello, is anyone out there?

1997-06-13 08:17:02
From owner-ietf-smime(_at_)imc(_dot_)org Thu Jun 12 22:26:03 1997
Date: Thu, 12 Jun 1997 19:18:27 -0700
To: ietf-smime(_at_)imc(_dot_)org
From: "Paul E. Hoffman" <phoffman(_at_)imc(_dot_)org>
Subject: Re: Hello, is anyone out there?

At 6:58 PM -0700 6/12/97, Charles Breed wrote:
1. When will the next version of the S/MIME spec be posted?
  (hopefully, clarifying the FOO(_at_)40-bit issue)

Soon. We're still waiting to hear from the RFC editor and Internet Drafts
editors with the draft that will replace RC2.

2. Is there going to be a working-group formed before the Jeff Schiller
  July 1st date?

Highly unlikely. No one has expressed much interest in a charter.

That was a rhetorical wake-up call, right?  I thought there was much
interest expressed in Memphis for forming a working group *even if*

1) the name had to be changed because the trademark/change-control issue
    couldn't be resolved, and

2) the IETF spec wouldn't require backward interoperability because the
    RC2 IPR issue couldn't be resolved

From Laurence's minutes:

   "Jeff (area director): S/MIME IPR issue must be resolved by July 1,
    1997 or working group cannot be formed

    Tim (RSA Inc.): RSA can work with that time frame


   (editor's summary: RSA must resolve two issues before a working group
   can begin work towards a standard.
   1) S/MIME must not rely on a trade secret (RC2),
   2) Change control must be with the IETF (e.g., the rights to the
    "S/MIME" trademark must be neutrally held.) These must be resolved by
    July 1, 1997.  The RSA representive acknowledged this)."

Has RSA made a statement yet resolving these two points?

Regardless of what that statement says/will say, there is interest in
forming a working group, and working around the name and/or algorithm
problems if necessary.  (I assume that it will be necessary to replace

As for the charter itself, who could argue with the current one? :-)
Just slip all the dates by 6 months and it's good to go.

4. Are the two S/MIME specs going on the Informational (FYI) track?

We won't know that until we finish them. We're still hoping for standards
track, of course, but a lot has to happen between here and there.

How can there be a standards track progression without a working group?
Technically it's possible according to the rules, but it hardly serves
the purpose of generating a document with buy-in from most of the
interested parties (rough consensus).

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>