Subject: Re: Last Call: 'TLS User Mapping Extension' to Proposed Standard

From: Bernard Aboba <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2006 13:20:46 -0800 (PST)

Pasi Eronen said:

"On the other hand, I also think that just refusing to publish this
document would be a highly unproductive approach. If the document
solves a reasonable problem, the solution works, and it looks likely
it will be widely deployed, I don't think preventing publication on
minor process details would exactly "make the Internet work better"."

I agree that not publishing this document would be unproductive, but I'm 
not sure I agree about the "minor process details" part.  The IETF has 
processes in order to ensure fairness and due process.  These details are 
not minor -- one might argue they are at the heart of what it means to be 
an open standards body. 

You do make a good argument that the TLS IANA considerations are producing 
results that are not very logical.  If that's true, then we should fix 
this so that the results make sense to the community.  Throughout the IETF 
we seem to be overwhelmed with the proliferation of rules which while 
originally created with good intentions, now contribute little to the 
fundamental business of the organization, and are contributing to the 
perception that the process is illogical and unfair.  Adding a layer of 
exceptions on top in order to get enable smoother passage through the 
thicket will only make things even more complex; it might be preferrable 
to consider a defoliant. 

I'd also note that there is another TLS extension going for Proposed 
Standard that is in much the same situation:
http://www.watersprings.org/pub/id/draft-salowey-tls-ticket-07.txt

That document is also likely to be widely deployed, is largely backed by a 
single vendor, and has some issues that would require changes that may be 
difficult to make given the advanced state of development. 

Does it make sense to refuse to publish this document because of these 
issues? No.  Is it important that the IETF treat such documents in a 
manner that is uniform as well as logical?  Very much so. 

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

---

From: "Stefan Santesson" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2006 14:11:59 -0000

Just to clarify this point.

The text in the introduction where the authors retained change control
was a leftover from the original draft that was intended to go
informational.

We simply forgot to remove this when we changed the scope to
informational.
This is fixed in version 03 of the draft.

Stefan Santesson
Program Manager, Standards Liaison
Windows Security

-----Original Message-----
From: Russ Housley [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: den 19 februari 2006 23:22
To: Bill Fenner; Steven M. Bellovin
Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: [TLS] Re: Last Call: 'TLS User Mapping Extension' to Proposed
Standard

I misunderstood the original question.  I'll get it fixed or withdraw 
the Last Call.

Russ

At 12:38 AM 2/19/2006, Bill Fenner wrote:

> >Can we have a Proposed Standard
> >without the IETF having change control?
>
>No.  RFC3978 says, in section 5.2 where it describes the derivative
>works limitation that's present in draft-santesson-tls-ume, "These
>notices may not be used with any standards-track document".
>
>   Bill

_______________________________________________
TLS mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls

---

From: "Stefan Santesson" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2006 14:26:03 -0000

This empty appendix was removed in draft 02.

As Russ stated before, an IPR disclosure has been posted to the IETF IPR
page which can be found at:

Stefan Santesson

-----Original Message-----
From: Bill Strahm [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: den 20 februari 2006 02:21
To: Russ Housley
Cc: Bill Fenner; [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked]; Steven M.
Bellovin
Subject: Re: Last Call: 'TLS User Mapping Extension' to Proposed
Standard

I saw all of the huff, and while I agree with it, I am more concerned
about

Appendix A. IPR Disclosure

    TBD

What does that mean, and more specifically is a document with a TBD 
section really ready for last call at all ?

Bill

---

From: "Stefan Santesson" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2006 14:27:40 -0000

Sorry, managed to hit send button to early.

The IPR statement is available at:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/ipr_detail_show.cgi?ipr_id=688

Stefan Santesson

-----Original Message-----
From: Stefan Santesson 
Sent: den 28 februari 2006 15:26
To: 'Bill Strahm'; Russ Housley
Cc: Bill Fenner; [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked]; Steven M.
Bellovin
Subject: RE: Last Call: 'TLS User Mapping Extension' to Proposed
Standard

Stefan Santesson

-----Original Message-----
From: Bill Strahm [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: den 20 februari 2006 02:21
To: Russ Housley
Cc: Bill Fenner; [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked]; Steven M.
Bellovin

    TBD

Bill