I don't care strongly about the standards track status. However,
speaking as implementer of the protocol: If the document ends up as
informational or experimental, I request that we make an exception and
allow the protocol to use the already allocated IANA protocol
constants. That will avoid interoperability problems. I know the
numbers are allocated from the pool of numbers reserved for standards
track documents. There is no indication that we are running out of
numbers in that registry. Thus, given the recall, I think the IETF
should be flexible and not re-assign the IANA allocated numbers at
this point just because of procedural reasons.
/Simon
Sam Hartman <hartmans-ietf(_at_)mit(_dot_)edu> writes:
Folks, we didn't get a lot of support expressed in the second last
call. If I were making a consensus call today I'd say we do not have
consensus to publish draft-housley-tls-authz-extns as a proposed
standard given the IPR claims against it.
However Russ pointed out to me that it may be that people thought this
was a typical last call where silence meant agreement. I think even
under that interpretation things look grim: silence means agreement
with the prevailing expressed opinion.
But to make absolutely sure I propose to conduct a last call to
confirm that we don't have consensus to publish as a proposed
standard. Does this seem like the right approach to folks? I plan to
take some next step within the next couple of days based on input.
I'm sorry this issue is taking up so much of the community's time.
Sam Hartman
Security Area Director
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf