ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Publication track for IBE documents (Was Second Last Call...)

2008-10-21 21:30:13

So while I don't strongly object to these as informational RFCs,
I do wonder why, if only one implementation is ever likely, we
need any RFC at all. Its not like these docs describe something
one couldn't easily figure out were there a need, given that
the (elegant but not especially useful) crypto has been around
for a while without finding any serious applications.

Stephen.

Tim Polk wrote:
Okay, I fat fingered this one.  The S/MIME WG actually forwarded these
documents
with a recommendation that they be published as Informational.  I
intended to respect
that consensus, but for one reason or another, they ended up in the
Tracker marked
for Standards track.

It is clear that the WG got this one right, and I have changed the
intended status on
both documents to Informational.

Thanks,

Tim Polk

Harald wrote:

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

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