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

[Michael StJohns <[e-mail]>]

Hi Eric -

I went to review the bidding on the TLS mailing list covering this period and it appears the archives at <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tls/current/maillist.html>http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tls/current/maillist.html  only go back to the beginning of the year.  Could you point me at a more complete archive covering the period and the discussions about TLS WG interest in this document please?

With respect to this document, I'm not quite sure what you're proposing here.  Are you requesting the authors re-submit the document to the TLS WG as a work item that will actually be worked on?  Are you asserting that only non-controversial individual contributor items should be standardized as a general rule and that the WG is the arbiter of what is "controversial"?  

My understanding from what record I've found is that the item was submitted to the WG and the WG "no-bid" the work item and it continued - legitimately - under the existing rules as an individual submission. It sounds like from your WG chair comments that you're proposing that non-WG submissions should never become standards track documents.  If that's not the case, could you elaborate on why you "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."


Thanks - Mike


At 12:33 AM 2/11/2009, Eric Rescorla wrote:
>[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but IESG approval was rescinded after the disclosure of IPR that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.