I am curious - is this a commitment by the TLS chairs to actually work
on this document? Or simply an attempt to prevent the IESG from
advancing a document that the WG previously declined to work on, and
could easily do so again?
I have no strong feelings on the document itself, as it is out of my
technical area of expertise. However, it is confusing to me for the
chairs of a working group to pass on working on a document due to lack
of interest, and then claim that the IESG should not advance it outside
of the WG process because they lead a relevant working group in this
area - you can't have it both ways.
IMO, if the chairs are committing to actually work on the document as
part of the TLS work program, great, perhaps it makes sense for the IESG
to send it to TLS for consideration. However, if not, then the IESG
should take into account the fact that TLS declined to address it when
it was offered to them, assume that this could easily happen again, and
proceed with making their decision to approve or not outside of the WG
process. Otherwise, it simply smells like an attempt to deep six the
document by pulling it back into a WG which has already declined to
address it, with no real commitment to work on it this time, either.
Regards,
Chuck
-------------
Chuck Powers,
Motorola, Inc
phone: 512-427-7261
mobile: 512-576-0008
-----Original Message-----
From: ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
[mailto:ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org] On
Behalf Of Eric Rescorla
Sent: Tuesday, February 10, 2009 11:34 PM
To: iesg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org; ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org;
draft-housley-tls-authz-extns(_at_)tools(_dot_)ietf(_dot_)org
Subject: TLS WG Chair Comments on draft-ietf-tls-authz-07
[Resent with proper addressing information]
As chairs of the TLS Working Group, we request that the IESG not
approve draft-ietf-tls-authz-07 as a Proposed Standard. This document
was initially brought to the TLS WG, which passed on it due to lack of
interest and it was subsequently advanced as an individual submission,
but IESG approval was rescinded after the disclosure of IPR that
affected the document. These events occurred in late 2006 and early
2007. In the nearly two years since the previous attempts at
progressing the document, the authors have not coordinated with the
TLS WG. The TLS WG was not consulted prior to the start of this new
Last Call.
Although we recognize that opinions vary about the wisdom of advancing
documents as individual submissions, this does not seem like an edge
case to us. First, there is a functioning, relevant, working group:
TLS. While it is true that the WG did not object to advancement two
years ago, that was with the impression that it would be
uncontroversial, which clearly is not the situation. On the contrary,
the IPR situation remains quite unclear and there are also technical
issues with the document (see Eric Rescorla's separate review), as
well as at least one part of the document which is obsoleted by RFC
5246. These factors provide substantial evidence that the document
would benefit from the Working Group process.
If the authors wish to advance the document on the standards track,
the appropriate path is to submit it to the TLS WG as a work item. TLS
WG has the appropriate participation and skills to evaluate the need
for this work and the suitability of this document. If there is
sufficient support for work in this area (including the usual RFC 3979
IPR Evaluation), then it can advance through the standards track via
the WG process. If the authors don't wish to go through the WG
process, we do not oppose advancement of this document as
Experimental. However, we do not believe that advancing a two year old
document which is clearly in scope of an active WG is an appropriate
use of the individual submission process. Therefore we urge the IESG
not to approve this document.
Eric Rescorla
Joe Salowey
[TLS WG Chairs]
_______________________________________________
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