Subject: TLS WG Chair Comments on draft-ietf-tls-authz-07

From: Eric Rescorla <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2009 20:57:58 -0800

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but IESG approval was rescinded after the disclosure of IPR that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]

---

From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2009 16:29:05 -0800

Could I just point out here the real risk that this relevant objection might get lost in the sea of irrelevant aggitation from the FSF supporters?

________________________________

From: [email-masked] on behalf of Eric Rescorla
Sent: Tue 2/10/2009 11:57 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: TLS WG Chair Comments on draft-ietf-tls-authz-07

Eric Rescorla
Joe Salowey
[TLS WG Chairs]
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

---

From: "Steven M. Bellovin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2009 19:46:21 -0500

On Wed, 11 Feb 2009 16:29:05 -0800
"Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <[email-masked]> wrote:

> Could I just point out here the real risk that this relevant
> objection might get lost in the sea of irrelevant aggitation from the
> FSF supporters? 
> 
I agree.  Let's move the substantive discussion to the TLS WG mailing
list, or at least agree on some "secret" keyword to put into Subject:
lines that I can use for better filtering; I'm on the verge of
kill-filing anything with "authz" or "TLS" or "patent", at least if
they appear on the IETF list...

		--Steve Bellovin, http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb