Subject: 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

From: SM <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2008 17:22:43 -0700

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.

Regards,
-sm

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

---

From: Stephen Farrell <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2008 09:47:43 +0100

> discussion about the draft, I don't see why it should be on the

I don't see any pressing need to publish these at all, especially given
the (unfriendly IMO) IPR disclosure and (what I believe) is the total
lack of any demand for this technology. I'd be for not publishing them.

Is this a case of I-Ds whose only real purpose is to stoke the marketing
machine of the IPR-holders? If so, is that something we should ignore or
push back against?

Stephen.

---

From: Harald Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2008 13:38:35 +0200

SM wrote:
> 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.
>
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