I think that the current texts would merit some additional work.
In particular to permit authorisation statements and to clarify
that how which client acts as a proxy for someone else.
I mentioned the first part to the authors some time ago, but
they didn't buy the idea.
Sam Hartman wrote:
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
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf