On Mar 6, 2009, at 11:26 AM, Tim Polk wrote:
Folks,
After some time reflecting on the hundreds of messages submitted to
the IETF discussion list, I have come to several conclusions about
progressing draft-housley-tls-authz. I will summarize the
conclusions up front, then provide the rationale for those decisions
in the remainder of this message.
1. Last Call demonstrates that the community does not support
progression of this document on the standards track, but sufficient
support exists for publication as an Experimental RFC.
2. The community would like the TLS working group to develop a
standards track mechanism for TLS authorization, and strongly
prefers an unencumbered solution.
You don't explicitly state so, but are you concluding that consensus
is that draft-housley-tls-authz is an encumbered solution.
I don't have an opinion here either way as I simply haven't done the
patent research, nor do I plan to form one. Nor do I intend to form
any opinion in this area if and when the IETF produces some other
solution in this space.
If publication of draft-housley-tls-authz is approved by the IESG
but delayed in deference to working group activities, I intend to
request early IANA assignment. This will permit experimental use
of this publication while the standards track publication is under
development.
I think if the IESG chooses not to publish draft-housley-tls-authz
now, the authors should immediately take it RFC Editor for publication
and the IESG should not object to its timely publication. In this
case, the authors should not be asked to wait on a WG effort as they
have done well, I think, to try to publish this through the IETF. It
would be disingenuous for us to now delay independent publication of
this I-D via the RFC Editor.
Regards, Kurt
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf