Eric Rescorla wrote:
My TLS co-chair suggests that this document should go forward as
Experimental. I see two problems with that. First: it assigns code
points out of a space which is reserved for Standards Action.
A correction: the draft needs code points from two different
registries (TLS extension types and TLS supplemental data type);
both of these registries have at least part of the numbers reserved
for "IETF Consensus" policy. So Standards Action is not needed.
(The draft also creates two new registries, but their allocation
policies and/or initial assignments could be easily modified at
this stage.)
<snip>
Given all this, plus the fact that this is squarely a TLS-relevant
document, and the IETF norm that it is best when WGs assess the
level of IPR involvement and balance that against the important of
the work, I think it would be best if this work were brought to the
TLS WG, which could decide whether to make it a WG item, in which
case the decisions about IPR could be made in the WG. If it clears
that bar, then we can have some level of confidence that the IPR
issues were judged. If it can't meet that bar, then it probably
should not be published at all.
I have to disagree with my co-chair here :-) TLS WG should be involved
in major technical work related to TLS, but I don't think getting it
involved in IPR discussions would be very fruitful.
Best regards,
Pasi
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf