ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Second Last Call: draft-ietf-smime-bfibecms (Using the Boneh-Franklin and Boneh-Boyen identity-based Encryption Algorithms with the Cryptographic Message Syntax (CMS)) to Proposed Standard

2008-10-21 07:39:04
SM wrote:
At 05:37 20-10-2008, The IESG wrote:
This is a second last call for consideration of the following document
from the S/MIME Mail Security WG (smime):

- 'Using the Boneh-Franklin and Boneh-Boyen identity-based Encryption
   Algorithms with the Cryptographic Message Syntax (CMS) '
   <draft-ietf-smime-bfibecms-10.txt> as a Proposed Standard

Technical issues raised in IETF Last Call and IESG evaluation have been
resolved.  However, there have been substantive changes in the relevant
IPR disclosures statements since the review process was initiated.
Specifically, IPR disclosure statement #888,
           (see https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/888/)
was replaced by PR disclosure statement #950,
           (see https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/950/)

This Last Call is intended to confirm continued community support in
light of the new IPR disclosure statement.  Given the limited scope of
this Last Call, an abbreviated time period has been selected.

Disclosure statement #888 mentions draft-martin-ibcs-08. That I-D was published as RFC 5091 in December 2007. Disclosure #950 submitted in May 2008 mentions new licensing terms for RFC 5091. That disclosure mentions that draft-ietf-smime-bfibecms-10 is on the Informational Track whereas it is on the Standards Track.

As there seems to be only one implementation and very little public discussion about the draft, I don't see why it should be on the Standards Track.
With licensing terms like these, I would want to see a compelling argument for why the community needs it standardized to put it on the standards track.

Let it be informational.

                 Harald

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

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